RE: [PATCH] dt-bindings: imx: update scu resource id headfile

[Aisheng Dong]

> From: Lucas Stach [mailto:l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 8:11 PM
> 
> Am Mittwoch, den 20.02.2019, 11:21 +0000 schrieb Aisheng Dong:
> > Hi Marco,
> >
> > > From: Marco Felsch [mailto:m.felsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:53 PM
> > >
> > > Hi Aisheng,
> > >
> > > On 19-02-20 09:49, Aisheng Dong wrote:
> > > > > From: Marco Felsch [mailto:m.felsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 4:17 PM On 19-02-20 03:38,
> > > > > Aisheng Dong wrote:
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't like droping some ID's (e.g.
> > > > > > > > IMX_SC_R_DC_0_CAPTURE0) by mark them as unused or even
> > > > > > > > worse give them a other meaning. IMHO the scu-api should
> > > > > > > > be stable since day 1 and the ID's should only be
> > > > > extended.
> > > > > > > > Marking ID's as deprecated is much better than moving them
> around.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree the SCU APIs should be stable since day 1 and the ID
> > > > > > > should ONLY be extended, but that is the best cases, the
> > > > > > > reality is, there are different SoCs/Revision, some
> > > > > > > revisions may remove the resources ID defined in pre-coded
> > > > > > > SCU firmware, like the
> > > > > > > IMX_SC_R_DC_0_CAPTURE0 etc., so SCU APIs removes them after
> > > > > > > real silicon arrived, now latest SCU firmware marks them as
> > > > > > > UNUSED, they could be replaced by some other new resources
> > > > > > > in later new SoC, I am NOT sure, but if it happens, this
> > > > > > > resource ID table should be updated anyway, leaving the
> > > > > > > out-of-date resource ID table there will have
> > > > > issues, since it is NOT sync with SCU firmware.
> > > > > > > So how to resolve such issue? We hope the SCU firmware
> > > > > > > should be stable since day 1, but the truth is NOT, could be
> > > > > > > still some updates but NOT very often. And I believe the
> > > > > > > updates will NOT break old
> > > > > kernel version.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Anson,
> > > > >
> > > > > Please don't mix the dt-bindings and the kernel related stuff.
> > > > > Unfortunately the bindings are within the kernel repo which in
> > > > > fact is great for us kernel developer but the bindings are also
> > > > > used in other projects such as barebox or other kernels (don't
> > > > > know the BSD guys). So you can't ensure that your change will
> > > > > break something. Please
> > > keep that in mind.
> > > > > IMHO solving that issue should be done by the scu firmware. I
> > > > > tought the scu is a cortex-m4 with a bunch of embedded flash and
> > > > > ram (I don't know that much about the scu since it is
> closed/black-boxed).
> > > > > Why do you don't use a translation table within the scu? As I
> > > > > said earlier I don't like the redefinition of ID's since they
> > > > > are now part of the
> > > dt-bindings.
> > > > > The bindings can store up to 32bit values which is a large
> > > > > number ;) IMHO wasting some ID's in favour of stability is a better
> solution.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > As far as I know, those remove resource IDs are pre-defined and
> > > > has never been used and won't be used anymore by SC firmware.
> > > > (Anson can double check it) So I think it's safe to remove them or
> > > > mark them as
> > > deprecated.
> > >
> > > I think marking them as deprecated by a commentar is better than
> > > redefining bits to be unused. As I said the bindings not only linux
> > > related they are used in other projects too.
> > >
> >
> > For other projects, the result is same because SC firmware does not
> > support those Resource IDs.
> >
> > > > Personally I may prefer to remove them as they never worked to
> > > > avoid confusing, especially at this early stage for mx8.
> > >
> > > So why they are there if they never worked? Wouldn't it a better
> > > approach to start with a basic and working ID file and extend this
> > > rather than adding id's because maybe the will work..
> >
> > Ideally yes, but may be hard in reality.
> >
> > SC firmware code usually is developed quite early before silicon comes.
> > But the real chip may changes, e.g. removed or added something.
> >
> > AFAIK those resource IDs removed have never worked in SC firmware, and
> > they're likely to come out of pre-silicon definition. But chip changes
> > later.
> >
> > > Sorry but this seems wrong to me too.
> > > I know the approach from driver development, adding a driver
> > > specific *_reg.h file and later figuring out that those bits won't
> > > work as aspected. As I said this will be driver and only linux
> > > related so we can change them as many times as we want. But in your
> > > case we are talking about dt-bindings and this approach won't work.
> >
> > I would agree with you if those resource IDs have worked before.
> > But they never worked.
> > Should we keep a thing never worked in device tree just because It
> > makes us look like keeping compatibility?
> >
> > If that, I'd rather removing them to avoid confusing in the future. Life is long,
> right?
> > I don't want people to bother with those unmeaning things anymore when
> > they look at it.
> 
> Removing things is totally fine if they have never worked. Re-using the now
> "free" IDs is what is problematic. Only ever use previously unused IDs when
> introducing new stuff into the SCU firmware. This is something you need to
> communicate quite clearly with the SCU firmware developers.
> 

Yes, that's right.
I will forward this request to them.
Thanks for the info.

Regards
Dong Aisheng

> Regards,
> Lucas