Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm64: marvell: add solidrun cn9130 clearfog boards

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 26/03/2024 20:26, Josua Mayer wrote:
> Am 26.03.24 um 07:41 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>> On 25/03/2024 21:12, Josua Mayer wrote:
>>> Am 25.03.24 um 20:34 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>>>> On 22/03/2024 11:08, Josua Mayer wrote:
>>>>> Am 21.03.24 um 22:47 schrieb Josua Mayer:
>>>>>> Add bindings for SolidRun Clearfog boards, using a new SoM based on
>>>>>> CN9130 SoC.
>>>>>> The carrier boards are identical to the older Armada 388 based Clearfog
>>>>>> boards. For consistency the carrier part of compatible strings are
>>>>>> copied, including the established "-a1" suffix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Josua Mayer <josua@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml        | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml
>>>>>> index 16d2e132d3d1..36bdfd1bedd9 100644
>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml
>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/marvell/armada-7k-8k.yaml
>>>>>> @@ -82,4 +82,16 @@ properties:
>>>>>>            - const: marvell,armada-ap807-quad
>>>>>>            - const: marvell,armada-ap807
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> +      - description:
>>>>>> +          SolidRun CN9130 clearfog family single-board computers
>>>>>> +        items:
>>>>>> +          - enum:
>>>>>> +              - solidrun,clearfog-base-a1
>>>>>> +              - solidrun,clearfog-pro-a1
>>>>>> +          - const: solidrun,clearfog-a1
>>>>>> +          - const: solidrun,cn9130-sr-som
>>>>>> +          - const: marvell,cn9130
>>>>>> +          - const: marvell,armada-ap807-quad
>>>>>> +          - const: marvell,armada-ap807
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>  additionalProperties: true
>>>>> Before merging I would like some feedback about adding
>>>>> another product later, to ensure the compatibles above
>>>>> are adequate? In particular:
>>>>> - sequence of soc, cp, carrier compatibles
>>>>> - name of som compatible
>>>>>
>>>>> Draft for future bindings:
>>>>>       - description:
>>>>>           SolidRun CN9130 SoM based single-board computers
>>>>>           with 1 external CP on the Carrier.
>>>>>         items:
>>>>>           - enum:
>>>>>               - solidrun,cn9131-solidwan
>>>>>           - const: marvell,cn9131
>>>>>           - const: solidrun,cn9130-sr-som
>>>> This does not look correct. cn9131 is not compatible with your som.
>>> This is partially my question.
>>> I considered changing the som to "cn913x-sr-som".
>>>
>>> The SoM itself is always 9130, it contains the base SoC
>>> with 1x AP and 1x CP in a single chip.
>>> 9131 and 9132 <happen> on the carrier boards.
>> No wildcards, but if the SoM name is 9130 then use 9130.
>> The problem is that you use cn9130 SoC as fallback.
>>
>>>>>           - const: marvell,cn9130
>>>> SoCs are compatible only in some cases, e.g. one is a subset of another
>>>> like stripped out of modem. Are you sure this is your case?
>>> This is more complex, CN9131 and CN9132 are not single SoCs.
>>> A "9132" is instantiated by connecting two southbridge chips
>>> via a Marvell defined bus, each providing additional IO
>>> such as network, i2c, gpio.
>>>
>>> Note that even the first, "9130", while a single chip, contains two dies:
>>> An "AP" (Application Processor I assume) with very limited IO (1xsdio, 1xi2c),
>>> and a "CP" (Communication Processor I assume) with lots of IO.
>>> This CP as far as I know today is identical to the southbridges
>>> mentioned above.
>> OK, but how does it affect compatibility between them? Which parts are
>> the same? Or how much is shared?
> 9130, 9131, 9132 belong together.

I don't understand what it means.

> 9130 is single chip including two dies: AP, CP.
> The CP is available as an individual chip,
> up to two can be connected to one 9130.

And? How does it help me to decide? What is 9131 and 9132?

> 
> What does this mean for compatibility?
> Which compatibility specifically?
> Is there a definition we can refer to?

Devicetree spec.

Let me answer with a question, because you neither answer mine nor
provide detailed information.

Is Cortex-A15 compatible with Cortex-A7 in the Devicetree? No. Now what
does it mean to your case?

I don't even understand what is your case.

> 
> From software perspective we can always down-grade,
> i.e. run software only aware of the AP on 9130, 9131 or 9132.
> But we can't run software referencing the external CPs
> if they are not connected.

Same with Cortex A15 and A7, right?


> 
>>>>>           - const: marvell,armada-ap807-quad
>>>>>           - const: marvell,armada-ap807
>>>> Anyway, 6 compatibles is beyond useful amount. What are you expressing
>>>> here?
>>> I copied this part from the examples earlier in the file, such as:
>>>       - description: Armada CN9132 SoC with two external CPs
>>>         items:
>>>           - const: marvell,cn9132
>>>           - const: marvell,cn9131
>>>           - const: marvell,cn9130
>>>           - const: marvell,armada-ap807-quad
>>>           - const: marvell,armada-ap807
>>>>  Why is this even armada ap807?
>>> We noticed ap807 != ap806 (cn913x != 8040),
>>> because the thermal sensor coefficients converting
>>> raw values to celsius differed.
>> That's also not the best example.Might be correct but also looks
>> over-complicated. The point of board-level compatibles is to identify
>> machine and its common parts. It has little impact inside of kernel (at
>> least should be almost no users inside!)
> Indeed, the temperature coefficients are handled by the thermal device
> compatible string, not board-level.
>> , but there can be some users,
>> e.g. firmware or user-space.
>>
>> This claims that cn9132 is compatible with ap807, so you have exactly
>> the same base. The same base is not CPU! It's about the S in SoC, so
>> "System".
> I would think since the base is always a single chip combining 1x AP+CP,
> the "system" is marvell,cn9130.
> For Armada 8040, the system would be marvell,armada8040 by same
> logic (also combining 1x AP+CP, different version, not extensible).
>> Could firmware use marvell,armada-ap807 compatible to properly
>> detect type of system and treat all these boards as ap807?
> I have not looked into presence detection for CP's during initialization.
> U-Boot support without spaghetti is a future Me task.

???

> I suspect it is possible with asterisk *, because so far I have only seen
> configuration with at least 1 CP, never with 0.
> Presence of a boot-rom on each die e.g. supports this idea.

I still don't understand.

Best regards,
Krzysztof