dm: add dev_get_reg() for getting device node's reg
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 Latest0 of 3 patches 0 repliesNew
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
None of the 3 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.
Cover letter [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/3] dm: add dev_get_reg() for getting device node's reg
Quoted 42 lines · Przemyslaw Marczak
Hello Stephen,
Quoted 17 lines · Stephen Warren
Quoted 8 lines · Stephen Warren
Quoted 7 lines · Przemyslaw Marczak
commit: dm: core: Enable optional use of
fdt_translate_address()enables device's bus/child address translation method, depending on bus 'ranges' property and including child 'reg' property. This change makes impossible to decode the 'reg' for node with '#size-cells' equal to 0.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Such case is possible by the specification and is also used in U-Boot, e.g. by I2C uclass or S5P GPIO - the last one is broken at present.
Can you please explain the problem you're seeing in more detail? Without any context, my initial reaction is that this is simply a bug somewhere. That bug should be fixed, rather than introducing new APIs to hide the problem.
Quoted 7 lines
Ah, I guess the problem is caused by the following code in
__of_translate_address():bus->count_cells(blob, parent, &na, &ns); if (!OF_CHECK_COUNTS(na, ns)) { printf("%s: Bad cell count for %s\n", __FUNCTION__,Yes, and this is what my previous patch 'fixes'.
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/537372/
However Linux makes the translate in the same way.
Quoted 7 lines
That's because the function assumes it's called for MMIO addresses. However, reg values for I2C devices aren't MMIO addresses, so those assumptions don't apply. So, there is an argument for introducing some new functionality. I'm not sure that a whole new function is the correct way to go though. Rather, the existing translation functions should be enhanced to know the location of root of the address space that contains the address that's being translated. Then, translation can stop there.
Quoted 2 lines
This is okay but then, all device tree blobs should be defined in a proper way.
Well, why shouldn't that be true? There are rules for how DTs must be constructed. Nobody should expect DTs that violate those rules to work in any particular way.
Quoted 5 lines
The problem is, that there are some additions and various assumptions in the drivers, e.g. the exynos gpio driver (
s5p_gpio.c) is checking the reg's property value for each bank. But the driver in Linux hardcodes those values, however for both cases this is wrong, because the gpio regs could be mapped with ranges.
It sounds like there are many bugs to fix:-)
Quoted 2 lines
Even that issues above, I would prefer introduce a function or modify the existing one to allow keeping this as it is.
Adding an extra function sounds OK, although I stand by my comment that the caller should pass in a parameter indicating the root of the address space, so that both #address-cells and #size-cells can be checked all the way up the chain, and #size-cells should only be allowed to be 0 at the root of the translation, not at any intermediate point.
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Something like skipping the check on ns in the above code if parent ==
addr_space_root_offset, and also terminating the for (;;) loop in that function under a similar condition.This would allow for translation to occur for buses other than the CPU's root MMIO space, yet not attempt to translate across known address space boundaries (i.e. where address translation is known to be impossible).
To achieve this functionality, it should be enough to take my first patch [1]. And then if no "ranges" is defined, then we have 1:1 translation.
I don't think so; that patch removes all checks on #size-cells rather than only removing/ignoring the check at the root of the address space.
Quoted 2 lines
I think, that it is safe, but then we will have a different assumptions, than in the Linux - is it acceptable?
Both Linux and U-Boot should conform to the DT specification. So, if there's a difference between the two, there's likely a bug.