Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] dt-bindings: Add DT bindings for NVIDIA Tegra AHB DMA controller

From: Dmitry Osipenko
Date: Tue Oct 03 2017 - 08:07:36 EST

On 03.10.2017 13:32, Jon Hunter wrote:
> On 03/10/17 00:02, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 02.10.2017 20:05, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 09/29/2017 09:11 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> On 29.09.2017 22:30, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>> On 09/27/2017 02:34 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/09/17 02:57, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 26.09.2017 17:50, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 26/09/17 00:22, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Document DT bindings for NVIDIA Tegra AHB DMA controller that presents
>>>>>>>>> on Tegra20/30 SoC's.
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> ÂÂ .../bindings/dma/nvidia,tegra20-ahbdma.txtÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ | 23
>>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>> ÂÂ 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>> ÂÂ create mode 100644
>>>>>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/nvidia,tegra20-ahbdma.txt
>>>>>>>>> diff --git
>>>>>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/nvidia,tegra20-ahbdma.txt
>>>>>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/nvidia,tegra20-ahbdma.txt
>>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>>>>> index 000000000000..2af9aa76ae11
>>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/nvidia,tegra20-ahbdma.txt
>>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
>>>>>>>>> +* NVIDIA Tegra AHB DMA controller
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +Required properties:
>>>>>>>>> +- compatible:ÂÂÂ Must be "nvidia,tegra20-ahbdma"
>>>>>>>>> +- reg:ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Should contain registers base address and length.
>>>>>>>>> +- interrupts:ÂÂÂ Should contain one entry, DMA controller interrupt.
>>>>>>>>> +- clocks:ÂÂÂ Should contain one entry, DMA controller clock.
>>>>>>>>> +- resets :ÂÂÂ Should contain one entry, DMA controller reset.
>>>>>>>>> +- #dma-cells:ÂÂÂ Should be <1>. The cell represents DMA request select
>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>> +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ for the peripheral. For more details consult the Tegra TRM's
>>>>>>>>> +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ documentation, in particular AHB DMA channel control register
>>>>>>>>> +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ REQ_SEL field.
>>>>>>>> What about the TRIG_SEL field? Do we need to handle this here as well?
>>>>>>> Actually, DMA transfer trigger isn't related a hardware description. It's
>>>>>>> up to
>>>>>>> software to decide what trigger to select. So it shouldn't be in the binding.
>>>>>> I think it could be, if say a board wanted a GPIO to trigger a transfer.
>>>>>>> And I think the same applies to requester... any objections?
>>>>>> Well, the REQ_SEL should definitely be in the binding.
>>>>>> Laxman, Stephen, what are your thoughts on the TRIG_SEL field? Looks
>>>>>> like we never bothered with it for the APB DMA and so maybe no ones uses
>>>>>> this.
>>>>> I don't think TRIG_SEL should be in the binding, at least at present. While
>>>>> TRIG_SEL certainly is something used to configure the transfer, I believe the
>>>>> semantics of the current DMA binding only cover DMA transfers that are initiated
>>>>> when SW desires, rather than being a combination of after SW programs the
>>>>> transfer plus some other HW event. So, we always use a default/hard-coded
>>>>> TRIG_SEL value. As such, there's no need for a TRIG_SEL value in DT. There's
>>>>> certainly no known use-case that requires a non-default TRIG_SEL value at
>>>>> present. We could add an extra #dma-cells value later if we find a use for it,
>>>>> and the semantics of that use-case make sense to add it to the DMA specifier,
>>>>> rather than some other separate higher-level property/driver/...
>>>> Thank you for the comment. If we'd want to extend the binding further with the
>>>> trigger, how to differentiate trigger from the requester in a case of a single
>>>> #data-cell?
>>>> Of course realistically a chance that the further extension would be needed is
>>>> very-very low, so we may defer the efforts to solve that question and for now
>>>> make driver aware of the potential #dma-cells extension.
>>> The request selector cell isn't optional, so is always present. If we later add
>>> an optional trig_sel cell, we'll either have:
>>> #dma-cells=<1>: req_sel
>>> or:
>>> #dma-cells=<2>: req_sel, trig_sel
>> Why request sel. couldn't be optional? Could you please elaborate a bit more?
>> I think possible options are:
>> #dma-cells=<1>: req_sel
>> #dma-cells=<1>: trig_sel
> With the above, how would you know that it is the req_sel or trig_sel
> that is specified?
>> #dma-cells=<2>: req_sel, trig_sel
>> The only difference between request and trigger is that trigger issues the whole
>> transfer, while request only a single burst. Isn't it possible to have a case in
>> HW for the "trigger-only" option? If not or it's a rareness, then I agree that
>> REQ_SEL must be mandatory.
> I think that what Stephen is proposing is that for now we go with
> '#dma-cells=<1>' and if we ever need to support the trigger cell we
> could add support for '#dma-cells=<2>'. So with this proposal the
> 'req_sel' would always be required for both '#dma-cells=<1>' and
> '#dma-cells=<2>'. Even if the req_sel is not actually used but the
> 'trig_sel' is, the user would have to set 'req_sel' to some pre-defined
> value (eg. -1) where we know to ignore it.

Okay, I see now. Thank you for the clarification, but then we should have that
pre-defined value declared in the binding?