Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: Documentation for qcom, llcc

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 05:37:49PM -0700, rishabhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 2018-04-30 07:33, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 5:57 PM,  <rishabhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 2018-04-27 07:21, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 04:09:31PM -0700, Rishabh Bhatnagar wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Documentation for last level cache controller device tree bindings,
> > > > > client bindings usage examples.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Channagoud Kadabi <ckadabi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Rishabh Bhatnagar <rishabhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  .../devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt      | 60
> > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 60 insertions(+)
> > > > >  create mode 100644
> > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > My comments on v4 still apply.
> > > > 
> > > > Rob
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi Rob,
> > > Reposting our replies to your comments on v4:
> > > 
> > > This is partially true, a bunch of SoCs would support this design but
> > > clients IDs are not expected to change. So Ideally client drivers
> > > could
> > > hard code these IDs.
> > > 
> > > However I have other concerns of moving the client Ids in the driver.
> > > The way the APIs implemented today are as follows:
> > > #1. Client calls into system cache driver to get cache slice handle
> > > with the usecase Id as input.
> > > #2. System cache driver gets the phandle of system cache instance from
> > > the client device to obtain the private data.
> > > #3. Based on the usecase Id perform look up in the private data to get
> > > cache slice handle.
> > > #4. Return the cache slice handle to client
> > > 
> > > If we don't have the connection between client & system cache then the
> > >  private data needs to declared as static global in the system cache
> > > driver,
> > > that limits us to have just once instance of system cache block.
> > 
> > How many instances do you have?
> > 
> > It is easier to put the data into the kernel and move it to DT later
> > than vice-versa. I don't think it is a good idea to do a custom
> > binding here and one that only addresses caches and nothing else in
> > the interconnect. So either we define an extensible and future-proof
> > binding or put the data into the kernel for now.
> > 
> > Rob
> Hi rob,
> Currently we have only instance but how do you propose we handle multiple
> instances in future?

Worry about that when you have more that one. If it's only a  
theoretical possibility then it can wait.

> Currently we do a lookup in the private data of the driver to get the slice
> handle but, if we were to remove the client connection we will have to make
> lookup table as global and we can't have more than one instance.
> Also, can you suggest any extensible interconnect binding that we can refer
> to?

There's been some work to add interconnect support for QCom chips. ATM, 
there is no binding for it and it is just a kernel driver and subsystem. 
I'm sure you can Google that to find as easily as me.

Rob