Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 12/14] dt-bindings: net: dsa: ocelot: add ocelot-ext documentation

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 04:59:02PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 04/10/2022 14:15, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 01:19:33PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> +  # Ocelot-ext VSC7512
> >>> +  - |
> >>> +    spi {
> >>> +        soc@0 {
> >>
> >> soc in spi is a bit confusing.
> > 
> > Do you have a better suggestion for a node name? This is effectively a
> > container for peripherals which would otherwise live under a /soc node,
> 
> /soc node implies it does not live under /spi node. Otherwise it would
> be /spi/soc, right?

Did you read what's written right below? I can explain if you want, but
there's no point if you're not going to read or ask other clarification
questions.

> > if they were accessed over MMIO by the internal microprocessor of the
> > SoC, rather than by an external processor over SPI.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The /spi/soc@0 node actually has a compatible of "mscc,vsc7512" which
Colin did not show in the example (it is not "simple-bus"). It is covered
by Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mscc,ocelot.yaml. Still waiting
for a better suggestion for how to name the mfd container node.

> >> How is this example different than previous one (existing soc example)?
> >> If by compatible and number of ports, then there is no much value here.
> > 
> > The positioning relative to the other nodes is what's different.
> 
> Positioning of nodes is not worth another example, if everything else is
> the same. What is here exactly tested or shown by example? Using a
> device in SPI controller?

Everything is not the same, it is not the same hardware as what is currenly
covered by Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/mscc,ocelot.yaml.
The "existing soc example" (mscc,vsc9953-switch) has a different port
count, integration with a different SERDES, interrupt controller, pin
controller, things like that. The examples already differ in port count
and phy-mode values, I expect they will start diverging more in the
future. If you still believe it's not worth having an example of how to
instantiate a SPI-controlled VSC7512 because there also exists an
example of an MMIO-controlled VSC9953, then what can I say.

------ cut here ------

Unrelated to your "existing soc example" (the VSC9953), but relevant and
you may want to share your opinion on this:

The same hardware present in the VSC7514 SoC can also be driven by an
integrated MIPS processor, and in that case, it is indeed expected that
the same dt-bindings cover both the /soc and the /spi/soc@0/ relative
positioning of their OF node. This is true for simpler peripherals like
"mscc,ocelot-miim", "mscc,ocelot-pinctrl", "mscc,ocelot-sgpio". However
it is not true for the main switching IP of the SoC itself.

When driven by a switchdev driver, by the internal MIPS processor (the
DMA engine is what is used for packet I/O), the switching IP follows the
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc,vsc7514-switch.yaml binding
document.

When driven by a DSA driver (external processor, host frames are
redirected through an Ethernet port instead of DMA controller),
the switching IP follows the Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/mscc,ocelot.yaml
document.

The switching IP is special in this regard because the hardware is not
used in the same way. The DSA dt-binding also needs the 'ethernet'
phandle to be present in a port node. The different placement of the
bindings according to the use case of the hardware is a bit awkward, but
is a direct consequence of the separation between DSA and pure switchdev
drivers that has existed thus far (and the fact that DSA has its own
folder in the dt-bindings, with common properties in dsa.yaml and
dsa-port.yaml etc). It is relatively uncommon for a switching IP to have
provisioning to be used in both modes, and for Linux to support both
modes (using different drivers), yet this is what we have here.