Re: [PATCH 02/14] dt-bindings: soc: milbeaut: Add Milbeaut trampoline description

[Sugaya, Taichi]

Hi

On 2018/12/04 0:49, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 1:42 AM Sugaya, Taichi
> <sugaya.taichi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2018/11/30 17:16, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > Quoting Sugaya, Taichi (2018-11-29 04:24:51)
> > > > On 2018/11/28 11:01, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > > Quoting Sugaya Taichi (2018-11-18 17:01:07)
> > > > > >     create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/socionext/socionext,m10v.txt
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/socionext/socionext,m10v.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/socionext/socionext,m10v.txt
> > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > index 0000000..f5d906c
> > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/socionext/socionext,m10v.txt
> > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> > > > > > +Socionext M10V SMP trampoline driver binding
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +This is a driver to wait for sub-cores while boot process.
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +- compatible: should be "socionext,smp-trampoline"
> > > > > > +- reg: should be <0x4C000100 0x100>
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +EXAMPLE
> > > > > > +       trampoline: trampoline@0x4C000100 {
> > > > > Drop the 0x part of unit addresses.
> > > >
> > > > Okay.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > +               compatible = "socionext,smp-trampoline";
> > > > > > +               reg = <0x4C000100 0x100>;
> > > > > Looks like a software construct, which we wouldn't want to put into DT
> > > > > this way. DT doesn't describe drivers.
> > > > We would like to use this node only getting the address of the
> > > > trampoline area
> > > > in which sub-cores wait.  (They have finished to go to this area in previous
> > > > bootloader process.)
> > >
> > > Is this area part of memory, or a special SRAM? If it's part of memory,
> > > I would expect this node to be under the reserved-memory node and
> > > pointed to by some other node that uses this region. Could even be the
> > > CPU nodes.
> >
> > Yes, 0x4C000100 is a part of memory under the reserved-memory node. So
> > we would like to use the SRAM ( allocated 0x00000000 ) area instead.
> > BTW, sorry, the trampoline address of this example is simply wrong.  We
> > were going to use a part of the SRAM from the beginning.
> >
> > > > So should we embed the constant value in source codes instead of getting
> > > > from
> > > > DT because the address is constant at the moment? Or is there other
> > > > approach?
> > >
> > > If it's constant then that also works. Why does it need to come from DT
> > > at all then?
> >
> > We think it is not good to embed constant value in driver codes and do
> > not have another way...
> > Are there better ways?
>
> If this is just memory, can you use the standard spin-table binding in
> the DT spec? There are some requirements like 64-bit values even on
> 32-bit machines (though this gets violated).

The spin-table seems to be used on only 64-bit arch. Have it ever worked 
on 32-bit machine?
And I would like not to use it because avoid violation.

Thanks
Sugaya Taichi


> Rob