Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] dt-bindings: clock: renesas,r9a06g032-sysctrl: Add h2mode property

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 24/11/2022 10:36, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Wed, 23 Nov 2022 10:39:41 +0100:
> 
>> On 22/11/2022 11:47, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:30 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
>>>> On 22/11/2022 10:07, Herve Codina wrote:  
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:42:48 +0100
>>>>> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>> On 22/11/2022 09:25, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:  
>>>>>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 8:45 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>>>>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
>>>>>>>> On 21/11/2022 21:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:  
>>>>>>>>>> This does not change anything. Herve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>> probe some devices (USB host and probably others)  
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why some can be probed earlier and some not, if there are no
>>>>>>>>>> dependencies? If there are dependencies, it's the same case with sysctrl
>>>>>>>>>> touching the register bit and the USB controller touching it (as well
>>>>>>>>>> via syscon, but that's obvious, I assume).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where is the synchronization problem?  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The h2mode bit (and probably a few other controls we haven't figured out
>>>>>>>>> yet) in the sysctrl must be set before any of the USB devices is active.
>>>>>>>>> Hence it's safest for the sysctrl to do this before any of the USB drivers
>>>>>>>>> probes.  
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, this does not differ from many, many of other devices. All of
>>>>>>>> them must set something in system controller block, before they start
>>>>>>>> operating (or at specific time). It's exactly the same everywhere.  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The issue here is that there are two _different drivers_ (USB host
>>>>>>> and device). When both are modular, and the driver that depends on the
>>>>>>> sysctrl setting is loaded second, you have a problem: the sysctrl change
>>>>>>> must not be done when the first driver is already using the hardware.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hence the sysctrl driver should take care of it itself during early
>>>>>>> initialization (it's the main clock controller, so it's a dependency
>>>>>>> for all other I/O device drivers).  
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assumed you have there bit for the first device (which can switch
>>>>>> between USB host and USB device) to choose appropriate mode. The
>>>>>> bindings also expressed this - "the USBs are". Never said anything about
>>>>>> dependency between these USBs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you saying that the mode for first device cannot be changed once the
>>>>>> second device (which is only host) is started? IOW, the mode setup must
>>>>>> happen before any of these devices are started?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway with sysctrl approach you will have dependency and you cannot
>>>>>> rely on clock provider-consumer relationship to order that dependency.
>>>>>> What if you make all clocks on and do not take any clocks in USB device?
>>>>>> Broken dependency. What if you want to use this in a different SoC,
>>>>>> where the sysctrl does not provide clocks? Broken dependency.  
>>>>>
>>>>> The issue is really related to the Renesas sysctrl itself and not related
>>>>> to the USB drivers themselves.
>>>>> From the drivers themselves, the issue is not seen (I mean the driver
>>>>> takes no specific action related to this issue).
>>>>> If we change the SOC, the issue will probably not exist anymore.  
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, and in the next SoC you will bring 10 of such properties to
>>>> sysctrl arguing that if one was approved, 10 is also fine. Somehow
>>>> people on the lists like to use that argument - I saw it somewhere, so I
>>>> am allowed to do here the same.  
>>>
>>> Like pin control properties? ;-)
>>> This property represents a wiring on the board...
>>> I.e. a system integration issue.
>>>   
>>>> I understand that the registers responsible for configuration are in
>>>> sysctrl block, but it does not mean that it should be described as part
>>>> of sysctrl Devicetree node. If there was no synchronization problem,
>>>> this would be regular example of register in syscon which is handled
>>>> (toggled) by the device (so USB device/host controller). Since there is
>>>> synchronization problem, you argue that it is correct representation of
>>>> hardware. No, it is not, because logically in DT you do not describe
>>>> mode or existence of other devices in some other node and it still does
>>>> not describe this ordering.  
>>>
>>> So we have to drop the property, and let the sysctrl block look
>>> for <name>@<reg> nodes, and check which ones are enabled?
>>>
>>> Running out of ideas...  
> 
> I'm stepping in, hopefully I won't just be bikeshedding on something
> that has already been discussed but here is my grain of salt.
> 
>> One solution could be making USB nodes children of the sysctrl block which:
>> 1. Gives proper ordering (children cannot start before parent)
>> regardless of any other shared resources,
>> 2. Allows to drop this mode property and instead check what type of
>> children you have and configure mode depending on them.
>>
>> However this also might not be correct representation of hardware
>> (dunno...), so I am also running out of ideas.
> 
> I see what you mean here, but AFAICS that is clearly a wrong
> representation of the hardware. Sorting nodes by bus seems the aim of
> device tree because there is a physical relationship, that's why we
> have (i2c as an example):
> 
> 	ahb {
> 		foo-controller@xxx {
> 			reg = <xxx>;
> 		};
> 	};
> 
> But what you are describing now is conceptually closer to:
> 
> 	clk-controller {
> 		foo-controller {
> 			reg = ?
> 		};
> 	};

Which is not a problem. reg can be anything - offset from sysctrl node
or absolute offset. We have it in many places already. What's the issue
here?

> 
> Not mentioning that this only works once, because foo-controller might
> also need other blocks to be ready before probing and those might
> be different blocks (they are the same in the rzn1 case, but
> more generally, they are not).

But what is the problem of needing other blocks? All devices need
something and we solve it...

> So in the end I am not in favor of this
> solution.
> 
> If we compare the dependency between the USB device controller and the
> sysctrl block which contains the h2mode register to existing
> dependencies, they are all treated with properties. These properties,
> eg:
> 
> 	foo-controller {
> 		clocks = <&provider [index]>;
> 	};
> 
> were initially used to just tell the consumer which resource it should
> grab/enable. If the device was not yet ready, we would rely on the
> probe deferral mechanism to try again later. Not optimal, but not
> bad either as it made things work. Since v5.11 and the addition of
> automatic device links, the probe order is explicitly ordered.
> <provider> could always get probed before <foo-controller>. So, isn't
> what we need here? What about the following:
> 
> 	sysctrl {
> 		h2mode = "something";
> 	};
> 
> 	usb-device {
> 		h2mode-provider = <&sysctrl>;
> 	};

No, because next time one will add 10 of such properties:
sysctrl {
	h2mode = ""
	g2mode = ""
	i2mode = ""
	....
}

and keep arguing that because these registers are in sysctrl, so they
should have their own property in sysctrl mode.

That's not correct representation of hardware.
> 
> We can initially just make this work with some additional logic on both
> sides. The USB device controller would manually check whether sysctrl
> has been probed or not (in practice, because of the clocks and power
> domains being described this will always be a yes, but IIUC we want to
> avoid relying on it) and otherwise, defer its probe. On the sysctrl side
> it is just a matter of checking (like we already do):
> 
> 	if (!sysctrl_priv)
> 		return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> 
> To be honest I would love to see the device link mechanism extended to
> "custom" phandle properties like that, it would avoid the burden of
> checking for deferrals manually, aside with boot time improvements. If
> we go this way, we shall decide whether we want to:
> * extend the list of properties that will lead to a dependency creation [1]
> * or maybe settle on a common suffix that could always be used,
>   especially for specific cases like this one where there is an
>   explicit provider-consumer dependency that must be fulfilled:
> 
> 	DEFINE_SUFFIX_PROP(provider, "-provider", "#provider-cells")
> 
> * or perhaps extend struct of_device_id to contain the name of the
>   properties pointing to phandles that describe probe dependencies with:
> 
> 	char *provider_prop_name;
> 	char *provider_cells_prop_name;
> 
>   and use them from of/property.c to generate the links when relevant.
> 
> [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.0/source/drivers/of/property.c#L1298
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Miquèl

Best regards,
Krzysztof