| Message ID | 20180426140728.43155-4-icenowy@aosc.io (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi, On 26/04/18 15:07, Icenowy Zheng wrote: > The Pine H64 board have a MicroSD slot connected to MMC0 controller of > the H6 SoC and a eMMC slot connected to MMC2. > > Enable them in the device tree. > > Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io> > --- > .../boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts > index d36de5eb81f3..78b1cd54687c 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts > @@ -20,6 +20,38 @@ > chosen { > stdout-path = "serial0:115200n8"; > }; > + > + reg_vcc3v3: vcc3v3 { > + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; > + regulator-name = "vcc3v3"; > + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; > + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; > + }; > + > + reg_vcc1v8: vcc1v8 { > + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; > + regulator-name = "vcc1v8"; > + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; > + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; > + }; > +}; > + > +&mmc0 { > + pinctrl-names = "default"; > + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc0_pins>; > + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; So this is actually CLDO1 on the AXP, correct? > + cd-gpios = <&pio 5 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; > + status = "okay"; > +}; > + > +&mmc2 { > + pinctrl-names = "default"; > + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc2_pins>; > + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; > + vqmmc-supply = <®_vcc1v8>; And this is BLDO2? I am just asking because I want to avoid running into the same problem as with the A64 before: that future DTs become incompatible with older kernels, because we change the power supply to point to the AXP regulators, which this kernel does not support yet. It looks like there are more users of those power rails, so we could keep those supplies connected to these fixed regulators here, even with AXP-805 support in the kernel. Or we keep this back until we get proper AXP support in the kernel? I guess it's quite close to the existing PMICs, so it might be more a copy&paste exercise to support the AXP-805? But apart from this this looks correct to me. Cheers, Andre. > + non-removable; > + cap-mmc-hw-reset; > + status = "okay"; > }; > > &uart0 { > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
于 2018年4月27日 GMT+08:00 上午12:46:26, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> 写到: >Hi, > >On 26/04/18 15:07, Icenowy Zheng wrote: >> The Pine H64 board have a MicroSD slot connected to MMC0 controller >of >> the H6 SoC and a eMMC slot connected to MMC2. >> >> Enable them in the device tree. >> >> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io> >> --- >> .../boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts | 32 >++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >> index d36de5eb81f3..78b1cd54687c 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >> @@ -20,6 +20,38 @@ >> chosen { >> stdout-path = "serial0:115200n8"; >> }; >> + >> + reg_vcc3v3: vcc3v3 { >> + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; >> + regulator-name = "vcc3v3"; >> + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; >> + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; >> + }; >> + >> + reg_vcc1v8: vcc1v8 { >> + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; >> + regulator-name = "vcc1v8"; >> + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; >> + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; >> + }; >> +}; >> + >> +&mmc0 { >> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >> + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc0_pins>; >> + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; > >So this is actually CLDO1 on the AXP, correct? I remember it's coupled between two LDOs, to provide enough power. > > >> + cd-gpios = <&pio 5 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; >> + status = "okay"; >> +}; >> + >> +&mmc2 { >> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >> + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc2_pins>; >> + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; >> + vqmmc-supply = <®_vcc1v8>; > >And this is BLDO2? Yes. > >I am just asking because I want to avoid running into the same problem >as with the A64 before: that future DTs become incompatible with older >kernels, because we change the power supply to point to the AXP >regulators, which this kernel does not support yet. The answer is just not to keep this compatibility, as it's not supported option to update DT without updating kernel. P.S. I think the DT will update twice on the kernel side, the first time keep reg_vcc3v3 (as it's coupled) but use real regulator for reg_vcc1v8, the second time use the real coupled regulator for reg_vcc3v3. > >It looks like there are more users of those power rails, so we could >keep those supplies connected to these fixed regulators here, even with >AXP-805 support in the kernel. It's not a good choice. > >Or we keep this back until we get proper AXP support in the kernel? I >guess it's quite close to the existing PMICs, so it might be more a >copy&paste exercise to support the AXP-805? It's not a reason to keep it back. > >But apart from this this looks correct to me. > >Cheers, >Andre. > >> + non-removable; >> + cap-mmc-hw-reset; >> + status = "okay"; >> }; >> >> &uart0 { >> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Icenowy, On 27/04/18 08:12, Icenowy Zheng wrote: > > > 于 2018年4月27日 GMT+08:00 上午12:46:26, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> 写到: >> Hi, >> >> On 26/04/18 15:07, Icenowy Zheng wrote: >>> The Pine H64 board have a MicroSD slot connected to MMC0 controller >> of >>> the H6 SoC and a eMMC slot connected to MMC2. >>> >>> Enable them in the device tree. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io> >>> --- >>> .../boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts | 32 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>> index d36de5eb81f3..78b1cd54687c 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>> @@ -20,6 +20,38 @@ >>> chosen { >>> stdout-path = "serial0:115200n8"; >>> }; >>> + >>> + reg_vcc3v3: vcc3v3 { >>> + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; >>> + regulator-name = "vcc3v3"; >>> + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; >>> + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; >>> + }; >>> + >>> + reg_vcc1v8: vcc1v8 { >>> + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; >>> + regulator-name = "vcc1v8"; >>> + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; >>> + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; >>> + }; >>> +}; >>> + >>> +&mmc0 { >>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>> + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc0_pins>; >>> + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; >> >> So this is actually CLDO1 on the AXP, correct? > > I remember it's coupled between two LDOs, to provide enough power. > >> >> >>> + cd-gpios = <&pio 5 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; >>> + status = "okay"; >>> +}; >>> + >>> +&mmc2 { >>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>> + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc2_pins>; >>> + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; >>> + vqmmc-supply = <®_vcc1v8>; >> >> And this is BLDO2? > > Yes. > >> >> I am just asking because I want to avoid running into the same problem >> as with the A64 before: that future DTs become incompatible with older >> kernels, because we change the power supply to point to the AXP >> regulators, which this kernel does not support yet. > > The answer is just not to keep this compatibility, as it's not > supported option to update DT without updating kernel. Well, I recognise that statement.. ;-) and I understand that it's far easier to handle it this way. But: - Which .dtb are we going to write into the SPI flash? An older one, which covers all kernels, but lacks features? Or a newer one, which limits the bootable kernels to recent versions? - Which DT are we going to give to EFI applications? - Which DT are the BSDs suspected to take? They don't ship their own DTs (which is good!). So I understand that "shipping the DT with the kernel" is the old (embedded!) way of doing things, but I really believe we should stop relying on this and try to come up with backwards compatible DTs, which live in the firmware and get updated there. Because this is what the distros seem to expect from ARM64 boards these days. > P.S. I think the DT will update twice on the kernel side, the > first time keep reg_vcc3v3 (as it's coupled) but use real > regulator for reg_vcc1v8, the second time use the real > coupled regulator for reg_vcc3v3. > >> >> It looks like there are more users of those power rails, so we could >> keep those supplies connected to these fixed regulators here, even with >> AXP-805 support in the kernel. > > It's not a good choice. > >> >> Or we keep this back until we get proper AXP support in the kernel? I >> guess it's quite close to the existing PMICs, so it might be more a >> copy&paste exercise to support the AXP-805? > > It's not a reason to keep it back. So I compared the manuals of the AXP806 and the AXP805, the register interface looks identical to me. I only have a (somewhat) Chinese version of the AXP806 manual, so couldn't really find the difference between the two. Do you know more about it? Is it just maybe the packaging and the electrical properties (like max current supported)? If the I2C register interface is really the same, we could just add the DT nodes for the regulator and be done. Cheers, Andre. > >> >> But apart from this this looks correct to me. >> >> Cheers, >> Andre. >> >>> + non-removable; >>> + cap-mmc-hw-reset; >>> + status = "okay"; >>> }; >>> >>> &uart0 { >>> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
于 2018年4月30日 GMT+08:00 下午5:47:35, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> 写到: >Hi Icenowy, > >On 27/04/18 08:12, Icenowy Zheng wrote: >> >> >> 于 2018年4月27日 GMT+08:00 上午12:46:26, Andre Przywara ><andre.przywara@arm.com> 写到: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 26/04/18 15:07, Icenowy Zheng wrote: >>>> The Pine H64 board have a MicroSD slot connected to MMC0 controller >>> of >>>> the H6 SoC and a eMMC slot connected to MMC2. >>>> >>>> Enable them in the device tree. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io> >>>> --- >>>> .../boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts | 32 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>> index d36de5eb81f3..78b1cd54687c 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>> @@ -20,6 +20,38 @@ >>>> chosen { >>>> stdout-path = "serial0:115200n8"; >>>> }; >>>> + >>>> + reg_vcc3v3: vcc3v3 { >>>> + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; >>>> + regulator-name = "vcc3v3"; >>>> + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; >>>> + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; >>>> + }; >>>> + >>>> + reg_vcc1v8: vcc1v8 { >>>> + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; >>>> + regulator-name = "vcc1v8"; >>>> + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; >>>> + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; >>>> + }; >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +&mmc0 { >>>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc0_pins>; >>>> + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; >>> >>> So this is actually CLDO1 on the AXP, correct? >> >> I remember it's coupled between two LDOs, to provide enough power. >> >>> >>> >>>> + cd-gpios = <&pio 5 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; >>>> + status = "okay"; >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +&mmc2 { >>>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc2_pins>; >>>> + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; >>>> + vqmmc-supply = <®_vcc1v8>; >>> >>> And this is BLDO2? >> >> Yes. >> >>> >>> I am just asking because I want to avoid running into the same >problem >>> as with the A64 before: that future DTs become incompatible with >older >>> kernels, because we change the power supply to point to the AXP >>> regulators, which this kernel does not support yet. >> >> The answer is just not to keep this compatibility, as it's not >> supported option to update DT without updating kernel. > >Well, I recognise that statement.. ;-) and I understand that it's far >easier to handle it this way. But: >- Which .dtb are we going to write into the SPI flash? An older one, >which covers all kernels, but lacks features? Or a newer one, which >limits the bootable kernels to recent versions? >- Which DT are we going to give to EFI applications? >- Which DT are the BSDs suspected to take? They don't ship their own >DTs >(which is good!). > >So I understand that "shipping the DT with the kernel" is the old >(embedded!) way of doing things, but I really believe we should stop >relying on this and try to come up with backwards compatible DTs, which >live in the firmware and get updated there. Because this is what the >distros seem to expect from ARM64 boards these days. I think in this way we should change the way to submit patches -- let DT binding patch be merged when it's ready, and do not wait for driver. > >> P.S. I think the DT will update twice on the kernel side, the >> first time keep reg_vcc3v3 (as it's coupled) but use real >> regulator for reg_vcc1v8, the second time use the real >> coupled regulator for reg_vcc3v3. >> >>> >>> It looks like there are more users of those power rails, so we could >>> keep those supplies connected to these fixed regulators here, even >with >>> AXP-805 support in the kernel. >> >> It's not a good choice. >> >>> >>> Or we keep this back until we get proper AXP support in the kernel? >I >>> guess it's quite close to the existing PMICs, so it might be more a >>> copy&paste exercise to support the AXP-805? >> >> It's not a reason to keep it back. > >So I compared the manuals of the AXP806 and the AXP805, the register >interface looks identical to me. I only have a (somewhat) Chinese >version of the AXP806 manual, so couldn't really find the difference >between the two. Do you know more about it? Is it just maybe the >packaging and the electrical properties (like max current supported)? > >If the I2C register interface is really the same, we could just add the >DT nodes for the regulator and be done. They're the same. My following patchset adds AXP805 compatible just to use AXP806 code. I have asked Wink and the answer is that they have only preset difference. > >Cheers, >Andre. > >> >>> >>> But apart from this this looks correct to me. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Andre. >>> >>>> + non-removable; >>>> + cap-mmc-hw-reset; >>>> + status = "okay"; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> &uart0 { >>>> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi, On 30/04/18 10:51, Icenowy Zheng wrote: > > > 于 2018年4月30日 GMT+08:00 下午5:47:35, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> 写到: >> Hi Icenowy, >> >> On 27/04/18 08:12, Icenowy Zheng wrote: >>> >>> >>> 于 2018年4月27日 GMT+08:00 上午12:46:26, Andre Przywara >> <andre.przywara@arm.com> 写到: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 26/04/18 15:07, Icenowy Zheng wrote: >>>>> The Pine H64 board have a MicroSD slot connected to MMC0 controller >>>> of >>>>> the H6 SoC and a eMMC slot connected to MMC2. >>>>> >>>>> Enable them in the device tree. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io> >>>>> --- >>>>> .../boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts | 32 >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>>> index d36de5eb81f3..78b1cd54687c 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>>> @@ -20,6 +20,38 @@ >>>>> chosen { >>>>> stdout-path = "serial0:115200n8"; >>>>> }; >>>>> + >>>>> + reg_vcc3v3: vcc3v3 { >>>>> + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; >>>>> + regulator-name = "vcc3v3"; >>>>> + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; >>>>> + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; >>>>> + }; >>>>> + >>>>> + reg_vcc1v8: vcc1v8 { >>>>> + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; >>>>> + regulator-name = "vcc1v8"; >>>>> + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; >>>>> + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; >>>>> + }; >>>>> +}; >>>>> + >>>>> +&mmc0 { >>>>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc0_pins>; >>>>> + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; >>>> >>>> So this is actually CLDO1 on the AXP, correct? >>> >>> I remember it's coupled between two LDOs, to provide enough power. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> + cd-gpios = <&pio 5 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; >>>>> + status = "okay"; >>>>> +}; >>>>> + >>>>> +&mmc2 { >>>>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc2_pins>; >>>>> + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; >>>>> + vqmmc-supply = <®_vcc1v8>; >>>> >>>> And this is BLDO2? >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> >>>> I am just asking because I want to avoid running into the same >> problem >>>> as with the A64 before: that future DTs become incompatible with >> older >>>> kernels, because we change the power supply to point to the AXP >>>> regulators, which this kernel does not support yet. >>> >>> The answer is just not to keep this compatibility, as it's not >>> supported option to update DT without updating kernel. >> >> Well, I recognise that statement.. ;-) and I understand that it's far >> easier to handle it this way. But: >> - Which .dtb are we going to write into the SPI flash? An older one, >> which covers all kernels, but lacks features? Or a newer one, which >> limits the bootable kernels to recent versions? >> - Which DT are we going to give to EFI applications? >> - Which DT are the BSDs suspected to take? They don't ship their own >> DTs >> (which is good!). >> >> So I understand that "shipping the DT with the kernel" is the old >> (embedded!) way of doing things, but I really believe we should stop >> relying on this and try to come up with backwards compatible DTs, which >> live in the firmware and get updated there. Because this is what the >> distros seem to expect from ARM64 boards these days. > > I think in this way we should change the way to submit > patches -- let DT binding patch be merged when it's ready, > and do not wait for driver. Yes, I agree. Ideally we would look at the hardware description, create a binding just based on that and submit it. Then the actual DTs and the drivers (for Linux, U-Boot, *BSD, you-name-it) could be done independently from each other. I think we should really aim for that. The only question is whether this is really practical, since the documentation is sometimes lacking and we may discover missing properties during driver development. So when we meanwhile do hand-in-hand development, we should make sure we don't break anything in the future. >>> P.S. I think the DT will update twice on the kernel side, the >>> first time keep reg_vcc3v3 (as it's coupled) but use real >>> regulator for reg_vcc1v8, the second time use the real >>> coupled regulator for reg_vcc3v3. >>> >>>> >>>> It looks like there are more users of those power rails, so we could >>>> keep those supplies connected to these fixed regulators here, even >> with >>>> AXP-805 support in the kernel. >>> >>> It's not a good choice. >>> >>>> >>>> Or we keep this back until we get proper AXP support in the kernel? >> I >>>> guess it's quite close to the existing PMICs, so it might be more a >>>> copy&paste exercise to support the AXP-805? >>> >>> It's not a reason to keep it back. >> >> So I compared the manuals of the AXP806 and the AXP805, the register >> interface looks identical to me. I only have a (somewhat) Chinese >> version of the AXP806 manual, so couldn't really find the difference >> between the two. Do you know more about it? Is it just maybe the >> packaging and the electrical properties (like max current supported)? >> >> If the I2C register interface is really the same, we could just add the >> DT nodes for the regulator and be done. > > They're the same. My following patchset adds AXP805 > compatible just to use AXP806 code. I have asked Wink > and the answer is that they have only preset difference. Ah, thanks for that, that's good info! So in this case we don't even need to add the compatible name to the driver, just add it to the binding doc and create (or copy) the DT snippets. See last week's discussion ;-) And we could aim to merge this together with the MMC driver, so that there would be no regression. Isn't that doable? I am happy to review patches on short notice (if you have them already, otherwise I am happy to make them). So in summary it looks like all changes could be purely binding doc/DT changes, so any 4.17 kernel would work already, when presented with the right DT. Cheers, Andre. > >> >> Cheers, >> Andre. >> >>> >>>> >>>> But apart from this this looks correct to me. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Andre. >>>> >>>>> + non-removable; >>>>> + cap-mmc-hw-reset; >>>>> + status = "okay"; >>>>> }; >>>>> >>>>> &uart0 { >>>>> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote: > Hi Icenowy, > > On 27/04/18 08:12, Icenowy Zheng wrote: >> >> >> 于 2018年4月27日 GMT+08:00 上午12:46:26, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> 写到: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 26/04/18 15:07, Icenowy Zheng wrote: >>>> The Pine H64 board have a MicroSD slot connected to MMC0 controller >>> of >>>> the H6 SoC and a eMMC slot connected to MMC2. >>>> >>>> Enable them in the device tree. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io> >>>> --- >>>> .../boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts | 32 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>> index d36de5eb81f3..78b1cd54687c 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>> @@ -20,6 +20,38 @@ >>>> chosen { >>>> stdout-path = "serial0:115200n8"; >>>> }; >>>> + >>>> + reg_vcc3v3: vcc3v3 { >>>> + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; >>>> + regulator-name = "vcc3v3"; >>>> + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; >>>> + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; >>>> + }; >>>> + >>>> + reg_vcc1v8: vcc1v8 { >>>> + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; >>>> + regulator-name = "vcc1v8"; >>>> + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; >>>> + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; >>>> + }; >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +&mmc0 { >>>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc0_pins>; >>>> + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; >>> >>> So this is actually CLDO1 on the AXP, correct? >> >> I remember it's coupled between two LDOs, to provide enough power. >> >>> >>> >>>> + cd-gpios = <&pio 5 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; >>>> + status = "okay"; >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +&mmc2 { >>>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc2_pins>; >>>> + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; >>>> + vqmmc-supply = <®_vcc1v8>; >>> >>> And this is BLDO2? >> >> Yes. >> >>> >>> I am just asking because I want to avoid running into the same problem >>> as with the A64 before: that future DTs become incompatible with older >>> kernels, because we change the power supply to point to the AXP >>> regulators, which this kernel does not support yet. >> >> The answer is just not to keep this compatibility, as it's not >> supported option to update DT without updating kernel. > > Well, I recognise that statement.. ;-) and I understand that it's far > easier to handle it this way. But: > - Which .dtb are we going to write into the SPI flash? An older one, > which covers all kernels, but lacks features? Or a newer one, which > limits the bootable kernels to recent versions? > - Which DT are we going to give to EFI applications? > - Which DT are the BSDs suspected to take? They don't ship their own DTs > (which is good!). > > So I understand that "shipping the DT with the kernel" is the old > (embedded!) way of doing things, but I really believe we should stop > relying on this and try to come up with backwards compatible DTs, which > live in the firmware and get updated there. Because this is what the > distros seem to expect from ARM64 boards these days. > >> P.S. I think the DT will update twice on the kernel side, the >> first time keep reg_vcc3v3 (as it's coupled) but use real >> regulator for reg_vcc1v8, the second time use the real >> coupled regulator for reg_vcc3v3. >> >>> >>> It looks like there are more users of those power rails, so we could >>> keep those supplies connected to these fixed regulators here, even with >>> AXP-805 support in the kernel. >> >> It's not a good choice. >> >>> >>> Or we keep this back until we get proper AXP support in the kernel? I >>> guess it's quite close to the existing PMICs, so it might be more a >>> copy&paste exercise to support the AXP-805? >> >> It's not a reason to keep it back. > > So I compared the manuals of the AXP806 and the AXP805, the register > interface looks identical to me. I only have a (somewhat) Chinese > version of the AXP806 manual, so couldn't really find the difference > between the two. Do you know more about it? Is it just maybe the > packaging and the electrical properties (like max current supported)? From what I could tell, they are the same. I'm not sure about max current, but that's something not described in the device tree right now. FYI, the AXP221s and AXP221 differ slightly in that one has increased current capability for one or two of the DC-DCs. We treat them as if they were the same right now. > If the I2C register interface is really the same, we could just add the > DT nodes for the regulator and be done. It is. However, we currently lack a "standalone operating mode" property. This is different from "master mode". ChenYu > Cheers, > Andre. > >> >>> >>> But apart from this this looks correct to me. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Andre. >>> >>>> + non-removable; >>>> + cap-mmc-hw-reset; >>>> + status = "okay"; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> &uart0 { >>>> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 30/04/18 10:51, Icenowy Zheng wrote: >> >> >> 于 2018年4月30日 GMT+08:00 下午5:47:35, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> 写到: >>> Hi Icenowy, >>> >>> On 27/04/18 08:12, Icenowy Zheng wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> 于 2018年4月27日 GMT+08:00 上午12:46:26, Andre Przywara >>> <andre.przywara@arm.com> 写到: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On 26/04/18 15:07, Icenowy Zheng wrote: >>>>>> The Pine H64 board have a MicroSD slot connected to MMC0 controller >>>>> of >>>>>> the H6 SoC and a eMMC slot connected to MMC2. >>>>>> >>>>>> Enable them in the device tree. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> .../boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts | 32 >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>>>> index d36de5eb81f3..78b1cd54687c 100644 >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>>>> @@ -20,6 +20,38 @@ >>>>>> chosen { >>>>>> stdout-path = "serial0:115200n8"; >>>>>> }; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + reg_vcc3v3: vcc3v3 { >>>>>> + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; >>>>>> + regulator-name = "vcc3v3"; >>>>>> + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; >>>>>> + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; >>>>>> + }; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + reg_vcc1v8: vcc1v8 { >>>>>> + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; >>>>>> + regulator-name = "vcc1v8"; >>>>>> + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; >>>>>> + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; >>>>>> + }; >>>>>> +}; >>>>>> + >>>>>> +&mmc0 { >>>>>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>>>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc0_pins>; >>>>>> + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; >>>>> >>>>> So this is actually CLDO1 on the AXP, correct? >>>> >>>> I remember it's coupled between two LDOs, to provide enough power. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> + cd-gpios = <&pio 5 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; >>>>>> + status = "okay"; >>>>>> +}; >>>>>> + >>>>>> +&mmc2 { >>>>>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>>>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc2_pins>; >>>>>> + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; >>>>>> + vqmmc-supply = <®_vcc1v8>; >>>>> >>>>> And this is BLDO2? >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am just asking because I want to avoid running into the same >>> problem >>>>> as with the A64 before: that future DTs become incompatible with >>> older >>>>> kernels, because we change the power supply to point to the AXP >>>>> regulators, which this kernel does not support yet. >>>> >>>> The answer is just not to keep this compatibility, as it's not >>>> supported option to update DT without updating kernel. >>> >>> Well, I recognise that statement.. ;-) and I understand that it's far >>> easier to handle it this way. But: >>> - Which .dtb are we going to write into the SPI flash? An older one, >>> which covers all kernels, but lacks features? Or a newer one, which >>> limits the bootable kernels to recent versions? >>> - Which DT are we going to give to EFI applications? >>> - Which DT are the BSDs suspected to take? They don't ship their own >>> DTs >>> (which is good!). >>> >>> So I understand that "shipping the DT with the kernel" is the old >>> (embedded!) way of doing things, but I really believe we should stop >>> relying on this and try to come up with backwards compatible DTs, which >>> live in the firmware and get updated there. Because this is what the >>> distros seem to expect from ARM64 boards these days. >> >> I think in this way we should change the way to submit >> patches -- let DT binding patch be merged when it's ready, >> and do not wait for driver. > > Yes, I agree. Ideally we would look at the hardware description, create > a binding just based on that and submit it. > > Then the actual DTs and the drivers (for Linux, U-Boot, *BSD, > you-name-it) could be done independently from each other. > > I think we should really aim for that. The only question is whether this > is really practical, since the documentation is sometimes lacking and we > may discover missing properties during driver development. > So when we meanwhile do hand-in-hand development, we should make sure we > don't break anything in the future. We could do that, but for critical regulators it's a bit tricky. Like the issue with vmmc and vqmmc, where the driver for the regulator is missing, leading to an unusable system. >>>> P.S. I think the DT will update twice on the kernel side, the >>>> first time keep reg_vcc3v3 (as it's coupled) but use real >>>> regulator for reg_vcc1v8, the second time use the real >>>> coupled regulator for reg_vcc3v3. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> It looks like there are more users of those power rails, so we could >>>>> keep those supplies connected to these fixed regulators here, even >>> with >>>>> AXP-805 support in the kernel. >>>> >>>> It's not a good choice. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Or we keep this back until we get proper AXP support in the kernel? >>> I >>>>> guess it's quite close to the existing PMICs, so it might be more a >>>>> copy&paste exercise to support the AXP-805? >>>> >>>> It's not a reason to keep it back. >>> >>> So I compared the manuals of the AXP806 and the AXP805, the register >>> interface looks identical to me. I only have a (somewhat) Chinese >>> version of the AXP806 manual, so couldn't really find the difference >>> between the two. Do you know more about it? Is it just maybe the >>> packaging and the electrical properties (like max current supported)? >>> >>> If the I2C register interface is really the same, we could just add the >>> DT nodes for the regulator and be done. >> >> They're the same. My following patchset adds AXP805 >> compatible just to use AXP806 code. I have asked Wink >> and the answer is that they have only preset difference. > > Ah, thanks for that, that's good info! > So in this case we don't even need to add the compatible name to the > driver, just add it to the binding doc and create (or copy) the DT > snippets. See last week's discussion ;-) We need to add the compatible to the I2C side of the AXP driver. Also the property for "standalone mode". I believe I already touched on this before in another discussion with Icenowy. > And we could aim to merge this together with the MMC driver, so that > there would be no regression. > Isn't that doable? I am happy to review patches on short notice (if you > have them already, otherwise I am happy to make them). > > So in summary it looks like all changes could be purely binding doc/DT > changes, so any 4.17 kernel would work already, when presented with the > right DT. No it won't. See above about the I2C driver. ChenYu > > Cheers, > Andre. > > >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Andre. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> But apart from this this looks correct to me. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Andre. >>>>> >>>>>> + non-removable; >>>>>> + cap-mmc-hw-reset; >>>>>> + status = "okay"; >>>>>> }; >>>>>> >>>>>> &uart0 { >>>>>> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote: > >> I am just asking because I want to avoid running into the same problem > >> as with the A64 before: that future DTs become incompatible with older > >> kernels, because we change the power supply to point to the AXP > >> regulators, which this kernel does not support yet. > > > > The answer is just not to keep this compatibility, as it's not > > supported option to update DT without updating kernel. > > Well, I recognise that statement.. ;-) and I understand that it's far > easier to handle it this way. But: > - Which .dtb are we going to write into the SPI flash? An older one, > which covers all kernels, but lacks features? Or a newer one, which > limits the bootable kernels to recent versions? > - Which DT are we going to give to EFI applications? > - Which DT are the BSDs suspected to take? They don't ship their own DTs > (which is good!). > > So I understand that "shipping the DT with the kernel" is the old > (embedded!) way of doing things, but I really believe we should stop > relying on this and try to come up with backwards compatible DTs, which > live in the firmware and get updated there. Because this is what the > distros seem to expect from ARM64 boards these days. You're not talking about backward compatibility, you're talking about forward compatibility. All the changes in this patch and the one predicted by Icenowy are backward compatible. > >> It looks like there are more users of those power rails, so we could > >> keep those supplies connected to these fixed regulators here, even with > >> AXP-805 support in the kernel. > > > > It's not a good choice. > > > >> > >> Or we keep this back until we get proper AXP support in the kernel? I > >> guess it's quite close to the existing PMICs, so it might be more a > >> copy&paste exercise to support the AXP-805? > > > > It's not a reason to keep it back. > > So I compared the manuals of the AXP806 and the AXP805, the register > interface looks identical to me. I only have a (somewhat) Chinese > version of the AXP806 manual, so couldn't really find the difference > between the two. Do you know more about it? Is it just maybe the > packaging and the electrical properties (like max current supported)? > > If the I2C register interface is really the same, we could just add the > DT nodes for the regulator and be done. And that argument is only valid if you 100% trust the fact that both datasheet are complete and accurate. And experience show that you can't. Maxime
Hi, On 01/05/18 16:52, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 30/04/18 10:51, Icenowy Zheng wrote: >>> >>> >>> 于 2018年4月30日 GMT+08:00 下午5:47:35, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> 写到: >>>> Hi Icenowy, >>>> >>>> On 27/04/18 08:12, Icenowy Zheng wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 于 2018年4月27日 GMT+08:00 上午12:46:26, Andre Przywara >>>> <andre.przywara@arm.com> 写到: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 26/04/18 15:07, Icenowy Zheng wrote: >>>>>>> The Pine H64 board have a MicroSD slot connected to MMC0 controller >>>>>> of >>>>>>> the H6 SoC and a eMMC slot connected to MMC2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Enable them in the device tree. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> .../boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts | 32 >>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>>>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>>>>> index d36de5eb81f3..78b1cd54687c 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>>>>> @@ -20,6 +20,38 @@ >>>>>>> chosen { >>>>>>> stdout-path = "serial0:115200n8"; >>>>>>> }; >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + reg_vcc3v3: vcc3v3 { >>>>>>> + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; >>>>>>> + regulator-name = "vcc3v3"; >>>>>>> + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; >>>>>>> + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; >>>>>>> + }; >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + reg_vcc1v8: vcc1v8 { >>>>>>> + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; >>>>>>> + regulator-name = "vcc1v8"; >>>>>>> + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; >>>>>>> + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; >>>>>>> + }; >>>>>>> +}; >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +&mmc0 { >>>>>>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>>>>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc0_pins>; >>>>>>> + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; >>>>>> >>>>>> So this is actually CLDO1 on the AXP, correct? >>>>> >>>>> I remember it's coupled between two LDOs, to provide enough power. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> + cd-gpios = <&pio 5 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; >>>>>>> + status = "okay"; >>>>>>> +}; >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +&mmc2 { >>>>>>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>>>>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc2_pins>; >>>>>>> + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; >>>>>>> + vqmmc-supply = <®_vcc1v8>; >>>>>> >>>>>> And this is BLDO2? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am just asking because I want to avoid running into the same >>>> problem >>>>>> as with the A64 before: that future DTs become incompatible with >>>> older >>>>>> kernels, because we change the power supply to point to the AXP >>>>>> regulators, which this kernel does not support yet. >>>>> >>>>> The answer is just not to keep this compatibility, as it's not >>>>> supported option to update DT without updating kernel. >>>> >>>> Well, I recognise that statement.. ;-) and I understand that it's far >>>> easier to handle it this way. But: >>>> - Which .dtb are we going to write into the SPI flash? An older one, >>>> which covers all kernels, but lacks features? Or a newer one, which >>>> limits the bootable kernels to recent versions? >>>> - Which DT are we going to give to EFI applications? >>>> - Which DT are the BSDs suspected to take? They don't ship their own >>>> DTs >>>> (which is good!). >>>> >>>> So I understand that "shipping the DT with the kernel" is the old >>>> (embedded!) way of doing things, but I really believe we should stop >>>> relying on this and try to come up with backwards compatible DTs, which >>>> live in the firmware and get updated there. Because this is what the >>>> distros seem to expect from ARM64 boards these days. >>> >>> I think in this way we should change the way to submit >>> patches -- let DT binding patch be merged when it's ready, >>> and do not wait for driver. >> >> Yes, I agree. Ideally we would look at the hardware description, create >> a binding just based on that and submit it. >> >> Then the actual DTs and the drivers (for Linux, U-Boot, *BSD, >> you-name-it) could be done independently from each other. >> >> I think we should really aim for that. The only question is whether this >> is really practical, since the documentation is sometimes lacking and we >> may discover missing properties during driver development. >> So when we meanwhile do hand-in-hand development, we should make sure we >> don't break anything in the future. > > We could do that, but for critical regulators it's a bit tricky. Like the > issue with vmmc and vqmmc, where the driver for the regulator is missing, > leading to an unusable system. Yes, that was my original point. We can already anticipate that we will break forward compatibility, so we can try to do something about that now to avoid that, either by staying with fixed regulators, or by adding the PMIC early. >>>>> P.S. I think the DT will update twice on the kernel side, the >>>>> first time keep reg_vcc3v3 (as it's coupled) but use real >>>>> regulator for reg_vcc1v8, the second time use the real >>>>> coupled regulator for reg_vcc3v3. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It looks like there are more users of those power rails, so we could >>>>>> keep those supplies connected to these fixed regulators here, even >>>> with >>>>>> AXP-805 support in the kernel. >>>>> >>>>> It's not a good choice. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Or we keep this back until we get proper AXP support in the kernel? >>>> I >>>>>> guess it's quite close to the existing PMICs, so it might be more a >>>>>> copy&paste exercise to support the AXP-805? >>>>> >>>>> It's not a reason to keep it back. >>>> >>>> So I compared the manuals of the AXP806 and the AXP805, the register >>>> interface looks identical to me. I only have a (somewhat) Chinese >>>> version of the AXP806 manual, so couldn't really find the difference >>>> between the two. Do you know more about it? Is it just maybe the >>>> packaging and the electrical properties (like max current supported)? >>>> >>>> If the I2C register interface is really the same, we could just add the >>>> DT nodes for the regulator and be done. >>> >>> They're the same. My following patchset adds AXP805 >>> compatible just to use AXP806 code. I have asked Wink >>> and the answer is that they have only preset difference. >> >> Ah, thanks for that, that's good info! >> So in this case we don't even need to add the compatible name to the >> driver, just add it to the binding doc and create (or copy) the DT >> snippets. See last week's discussion ;-) > > We need to add the compatible to the I2C side of the AXP driver. Why? If it's really 100% compatible, we just add it to the binding doc and use compatible = "x-powers,axp805", "x-powers,axp806"; in the DT. That would immediately enable other OSes, for instance. > Also the property for "standalone mode". Are you referring to what the manual refers to as "self-work" mode? In this case I don't see why we need a property: this mode is set up on the board side by leaving the MODESET pin floating. And it can be queried by checking bits[7:6] of REG 00, so doesn't need a DT property. If we care about this mode (do we?), we can check for this in the driver. (Curious if you meant something else ...) Cheers, Andre. > I believe I already touched on this > before in another discussion with Icenowy. > >> And we could aim to merge this together with the MMC driver, so that >> there would be no regression. >> Isn't that doable? I am happy to review patches on short notice (if you >> have them already, otherwise I am happy to make them). >> >> So in summary it looks like all changes could be purely binding doc/DT >> changes, so any 4.17 kernel would work already, when presented with the >> right DT. > > No it won't. See above about the I2C driver. > > ChenYu > >> >> Cheers, >> Andre. >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Andre. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But apart from this this looks correct to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Andre. >>>>>> >>>>>>> + non-removable; >>>>>>> + cap-mmc-hw-reset; >>>>>>> + status = "okay"; >>>>>>> }; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> &uart0 { >>>>>>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi, On 02/05/18 10:36, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote: >>>> I am just asking because I want to avoid running into the same problem >>>> as with the A64 before: that future DTs become incompatible with older >>>> kernels, because we change the power supply to point to the AXP >>>> regulators, which this kernel does not support yet. >>> >>> The answer is just not to keep this compatibility, as it's not >>> supported option to update DT without updating kernel. >> >> Well, I recognise that statement.. ;-) and I understand that it's far >> easier to handle it this way. But: >> - Which .dtb are we going to write into the SPI flash? An older one, >> which covers all kernels, but lacks features? Or a newer one, which >> limits the bootable kernels to recent versions? >> - Which DT are we going to give to EFI applications? >> - Which DT are the BSDs suspected to take? They don't ship their own DTs >> (which is good!). >> >> So I understand that "shipping the DT with the kernel" is the old >> (embedded!) way of doing things, but I really believe we should stop >> relying on this and try to come up with backwards compatible DTs, which >> live in the firmware and get updated there. Because this is what the >> distros seem to expect from ARM64 boards these days. > > You're not talking about backward compatibility, you're talking about > forward compatibility. All the changes in this patch and the one > predicted by Icenowy are backward compatible. Argh, yes, I meant forward compatibility, sorry! Shouldn't write those emails while actually doing something completely different ;-) >>>> It looks like there are more users of those power rails, so we could >>>> keep those supplies connected to these fixed regulators here, even with >>>> AXP-805 support in the kernel. >>> >>> It's not a good choice. >>> >>>> >>>> Or we keep this back until we get proper AXP support in the kernel? I >>>> guess it's quite close to the existing PMICs, so it might be more a >>>> copy&paste exercise to support the AXP-805? >>> >>> It's not a reason to keep it back. >> >> So I compared the manuals of the AXP806 and the AXP805, the register >> interface looks identical to me. I only have a (somewhat) Chinese >> version of the AXP806 manual, so couldn't really find the difference >> between the two. Do you know more about it? Is it just maybe the >> packaging and the electrical properties (like max current supported)? >> >> If the I2C register interface is really the same, we could just add the >> DT nodes for the regulator and be done. > > And that argument is only valid if you 100% trust the fact that both > datasheet are complete and accurate. > > And experience show that you can't. Well, but I wonder how paranoid we are going to be? And in this case we have confirmation from Wink that they are the same. So I think we can go with just a DT addition, given that we test it and confirm that it works for our use case. Should we discover something odd or undocumented later, I'd consider this a bug fix, which we then (and only then!) could fix by adding the compatible string to the driver. Any DT would be fine already, because we list both compatible strings in there. Cheers, Andre. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:01:53PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote: > >>>> It looks like there are more users of those power rails, so we could > >>>> keep those supplies connected to these fixed regulators here, even with > >>>> AXP-805 support in the kernel. > >>> > >>> It's not a good choice. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Or we keep this back until we get proper AXP support in the kernel? I > >>>> guess it's quite close to the existing PMICs, so it might be more a > >>>> copy&paste exercise to support the AXP-805? > >>> > >>> It's not a reason to keep it back. > >> > >> So I compared the manuals of the AXP806 and the AXP805, the register > >> interface looks identical to me. I only have a (somewhat) Chinese > >> version of the AXP806 manual, so couldn't really find the difference > >> between the two. Do you know more about it? Is it just maybe the > >> packaging and the electrical properties (like max current supported)? > >> > >> If the I2C register interface is really the same, we could just add the > >> DT nodes for the regulator and be done. > > > > And that argument is only valid if you 100% trust the fact that both > > datasheet are complete and accurate. > > > > And experience show that you can't. > > Well, but I wonder how paranoid we are going to be? And in this case we > have confirmation from Wink that they are the same. Paranoid enough so that we don't blindly trust that the reviewer had a coffee, no interruptions or moment of distraction, or that the datasheet is correct. But not so paranoid that having the driver running on a kernel is enough. > So I think we can go with just a DT addition, given that we test it > and confirm that it works for our use case. Should we discover > something odd or undocumented later, I'd consider this a bug fix, > which we then (and only then!) could fix by adding the compatible > string to the driver. Any DT would be fine already, because we list > both compatible strings in there. In this particular case, yeah, it seems reasonable. Maxime
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 7:01 PM, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 01/05/18 16:52, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 30/04/18 10:51, Icenowy Zheng wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> 于 2018年4月30日 GMT+08:00 下午5:47:35, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> 写到: >>>>> Hi Icenowy, >>>>> >>>>> On 27/04/18 08:12, Icenowy Zheng wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 于 2018年4月27日 GMT+08:00 上午12:46:26, Andre Przywara >>>>> <andre.przywara@arm.com> 写到: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26/04/18 15:07, Icenowy Zheng wrote: >>>>>>>> The Pine H64 board have a MicroSD slot connected to MMC0 controller >>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the H6 SoC and a eMMC slot connected to MMC2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Enable them in the device tree. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> .../boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts | 32 >>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>>>>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>>>>>> index d36de5eb81f3..78b1cd54687c 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts >>>>>>>> @@ -20,6 +20,38 @@ >>>>>>>> chosen { >>>>>>>> stdout-path = "serial0:115200n8"; >>>>>>>> }; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + reg_vcc3v3: vcc3v3 { >>>>>>>> + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; >>>>>>>> + regulator-name = "vcc3v3"; >>>>>>>> + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; >>>>>>>> + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; >>>>>>>> + }; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + reg_vcc1v8: vcc1v8 { >>>>>>>> + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; >>>>>>>> + regulator-name = "vcc1v8"; >>>>>>>> + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; >>>>>>>> + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; >>>>>>>> + }; >>>>>>>> +}; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> +&mmc0 { >>>>>>>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>>>>>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc0_pins>; >>>>>>>> + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So this is actually CLDO1 on the AXP, correct? >>>>>> >>>>>> I remember it's coupled between two LDOs, to provide enough power. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + cd-gpios = <&pio 5 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; >>>>>>>> + status = "okay"; >>>>>>>> +}; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> +&mmc2 { >>>>>>>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>>>>>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc2_pins>; >>>>>>>> + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; >>>>>>>> + vqmmc-supply = <®_vcc1v8>; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And this is BLDO2? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am just asking because I want to avoid running into the same >>>>> problem >>>>>>> as with the A64 before: that future DTs become incompatible with >>>>> older >>>>>>> kernels, because we change the power supply to point to the AXP >>>>>>> regulators, which this kernel does not support yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> The answer is just not to keep this compatibility, as it's not >>>>>> supported option to update DT without updating kernel. >>>>> >>>>> Well, I recognise that statement.. ;-) and I understand that it's far >>>>> easier to handle it this way. But: >>>>> - Which .dtb are we going to write into the SPI flash? An older one, >>>>> which covers all kernels, but lacks features? Or a newer one, which >>>>> limits the bootable kernels to recent versions? >>>>> - Which DT are we going to give to EFI applications? >>>>> - Which DT are the BSDs suspected to take? They don't ship their own >>>>> DTs >>>>> (which is good!). >>>>> >>>>> So I understand that "shipping the DT with the kernel" is the old >>>>> (embedded!) way of doing things, but I really believe we should stop >>>>> relying on this and try to come up with backwards compatible DTs, which >>>>> live in the firmware and get updated there. Because this is what the >>>>> distros seem to expect from ARM64 boards these days. >>>> >>>> I think in this way we should change the way to submit >>>> patches -- let DT binding patch be merged when it's ready, >>>> and do not wait for driver. >>> >>> Yes, I agree. Ideally we would look at the hardware description, create >>> a binding just based on that and submit it. >>> >>> Then the actual DTs and the drivers (for Linux, U-Boot, *BSD, >>> you-name-it) could be done independently from each other. >>> >>> I think we should really aim for that. The only question is whether this >>> is really practical, since the documentation is sometimes lacking and we >>> may discover missing properties during driver development. >>> So when we meanwhile do hand-in-hand development, we should make sure we >>> don't break anything in the future. >> >> We could do that, but for critical regulators it's a bit tricky. Like the >> issue with vmmc and vqmmc, where the driver for the regulator is missing, >> leading to an unusable system. > > Yes, that was my original point. We can already anticipate that we will > break forward compatibility, so we can try to do something about that > now to avoid that, either by staying with fixed regulators, or by adding > the PMIC early. > >>>>>> P.S. I think the DT will update twice on the kernel side, the >>>>>> first time keep reg_vcc3v3 (as it's coupled) but use real >>>>>> regulator for reg_vcc1v8, the second time use the real >>>>>> coupled regulator for reg_vcc3v3. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It looks like there are more users of those power rails, so we could >>>>>>> keep those supplies connected to these fixed regulators here, even >>>>> with >>>>>>> AXP-805 support in the kernel. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not a good choice. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or we keep this back until we get proper AXP support in the kernel? >>>>> I >>>>>>> guess it's quite close to the existing PMICs, so it might be more a >>>>>>> copy&paste exercise to support the AXP-805? >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not a reason to keep it back. >>>>> >>>>> So I compared the manuals of the AXP806 and the AXP805, the register >>>>> interface looks identical to me. I only have a (somewhat) Chinese >>>>> version of the AXP806 manual, so couldn't really find the difference >>>>> between the two. Do you know more about it? Is it just maybe the >>>>> packaging and the electrical properties (like max current supported)? >>>>> >>>>> If the I2C register interface is really the same, we could just add the >>>>> DT nodes for the regulator and be done. >>>> >>>> They're the same. My following patchset adds AXP805 >>>> compatible just to use AXP806 code. I have asked Wink >>>> and the answer is that they have only preset difference. >>> >>> Ah, thanks for that, that's good info! >>> So in this case we don't even need to add the compatible name to the >>> driver, just add it to the binding doc and create (or copy) the DT >>> snippets. See last week's discussion ;-) >> >> We need to add the compatible to the I2C side of the AXP driver. > > Why? If it's really 100% compatible, we just add it to the binding doc > and use compatible = "x-powers,axp805", "x-powers,axp806"; in the DT. > That would immediately enable other OSes, for instance. I meant the implementation side, not the DT. The AXP I2C driver only binds to the earlier (up to AXP221) PMICs. So just having the device tree correctly set up does not guarantee a working system for the current release, or the one in -rc. >> Also the property for "standalone mode". > > Are you referring to what the manual refers to as "self-work" mode? > In this case I don't see why we need a property: this mode is set up on > the board side by leaving the MODESET pin floating. And it can be > queried by checking bits[7:6] of REG 00, so doesn't need a DT property. > If we care about this mode (do we?), we can check for this in the driver. > > (Curious if you meant something else ...) Yes this is what I was referring to. If you look at the last two registers you'll see that self-work mode, along with master mode, require the address extension register be programmed before access to any other register can happen. We already have the "x-powers,master-mode" property. The driver will program the registers correctly when it sees this property. I'm arguing that we should have another "x-powers,self-work-mode", because these two modes are not the same: The enable pin works as a power key under self-work mode, while it acts as a level triggered enable pi, as the name describes. There are some other minor differences described in the datasheet. The device tree, being a hardware description, should not conflate the two and leave it up to the driver to figure things out. ChenYu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts index d36de5eb81f3..78b1cd54687c 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts @@ -20,6 +20,38 @@ chosen { stdout-path = "serial0:115200n8"; }; + + reg_vcc3v3: vcc3v3 { + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; + regulator-name = "vcc3v3"; + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; + }; + + reg_vcc1v8: vcc1v8 { + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; + regulator-name = "vcc1v8"; + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; + }; +}; + +&mmc0 { + pinctrl-names = "default"; + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc0_pins>; + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; + cd-gpios = <&pio 5 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; + status = "okay"; +}; + +&mmc2 { + pinctrl-names = "default"; + pinctrl-0 = <&mmc2_pins>; + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>; + vqmmc-supply = <®_vcc1v8>; + non-removable; + cap-mmc-hw-reset; + status = "okay"; }; &uart0 {
The Pine H64 board have a MicroSD slot connected to MMC0 controller of the H6 SoC and a eMMC slot connected to MMC2. Enable them in the device tree. Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io> --- .../boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)