| Message ID | 20250207-ppcyaml-v2-9-8137b0c42526@posteo.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Handled Elsewhere |
| Delegated to: | Krzysztof Wilczyński |
| Headers | show |
| Series | YAML conversion of several Freescale/PowerPC DT bindings | expand |
On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 22:30:26 +0100, J. Neuschäfer wrote: > Convert the Freescale localbus controller bindings from text form to > YAML. The updated list of compatible strings reflects current usage > in arch/powerpc/boot/dts/, except that many existing device trees > erroneously specify "simple-bus" in addition to fsl,*elbc. > > Changes compared to the txt version: > - removed the board-control (fsl,mpc8272ads-bcsr) node because it only > appears in this example and nowhere else > - added a new example with NAND flash > - updated list of compatible strings > > Signed-off-by: J. Neuschäfer <j.ne@posteo.net> > --- > > V2: > - fix order of properties in examples, according to dts coding style > - move to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers > - clarify the commit message a tiny bit > - remove unnecessary multiline markers (|) > - define address format in patternProperties > - trim subject line (remove "binding") > - remove use of "simple-bus", because it's technically incorrect > --- > .../bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.yaml | 146 +++++++++++++++++++++ > .../devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/lbc.txt | 43 ------ > 2 files changed, 146 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) > My bot found errors running 'make dt_binding_check' on your patch: yamllint warnings/errors: dtschema/dtc warnings/errors: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.example.dtb: /example-0/localbus@f0010100/simple-periph@2,0: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['fsl,elbc-gpcm-uio'] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.example.dtb: /example-1/localbus@e0005000/nand@1,0: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['fsl,mpc8315-fcm-nand', 'fsl,elbc-fcm-nand'] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.example.dtb: /example-1/localbus@e0005000/nand@1,0: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['fsl,mpc8315-fcm-nand', 'fsl,elbc-fcm-nand'] doc reference errors (make refcheckdocs): Warning: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/ssd1289fb.txt references a file that doesn't exist: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/lbc.txt Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/ssd1289fb.txt: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/lbc.txt See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20250207-ppcyaml-v2-9-8137b0c42526@posteo.net The base for the series is generally the latest rc1. A different dependency should be noted in *this* patch. If you already ran 'make dt_binding_check' and didn't see the above error(s), then make sure 'yamllint' is installed and dt-schema is up to date: pip3 install dtschema --upgrade Please check and re-submit after running the above command yourself. Note that DT_SCHEMA_FILES can be set to your schema file to speed up checking your schema. However, it must be unset to test all examples with your schema.
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 05:44:59PM -0600, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote: > On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 22:30:26 +0100, J. Neuschäfer wrote: [...] > > .../bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.yaml | 146 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > .../devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/lbc.txt | 43 ------ > > 2 files changed, 146 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) [...] > dtschema/dtc warnings/errors: > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.example.dtb: /example-0/localbus@f0010100/simple-periph@2,0: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['fsl,elbc-gpcm-uio'] > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.example.dtb: /example-1/localbus@e0005000/nand@1,0: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['fsl,mpc8315-fcm-nand', 'fsl,elbc-fcm-nand'] > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.example.dtb: /example-1/localbus@e0005000/nand@1,0: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['fsl,mpc8315-fcm-nand', 'fsl,elbc-fcm-nand'] I think this is due to how the patches are ordered in the series. This patch uses fsl,elbc-gpcm-uio and fsl,elbc-fcm-nand in examples, but comes before the patches that define the corresponding bindings.
On 09/02/2025 18:28, J. Neuschäfer wrote: > On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 05:44:59PM -0600, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote: >> On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 22:30:26 +0100, J. Neuschäfer wrote: > [...] >>> .../bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.yaml | 146 +++++++++++++++++++++ >>> .../devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/lbc.txt | 43 ------ >>> 2 files changed, 146 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) > [...] >> dtschema/dtc warnings/errors: >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.example.dtb: /example-0/localbus@f0010100/simple-periph@2,0: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['fsl,elbc-gpcm-uio'] >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.example.dtb: /example-1/localbus@e0005000/nand@1,0: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['fsl,mpc8315-fcm-nand', 'fsl,elbc-fcm-nand'] >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.example.dtb: /example-1/localbus@e0005000/nand@1,0: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['fsl,mpc8315-fcm-nand', 'fsl,elbc-fcm-nand'] > > I think this is due to how the patches are ordered in the series. If that's possible, this should be fixed, e.g. by re-ordering the patches. > This patch uses fsl,elbc-gpcm-uio and fsl,elbc-fcm-nand in examples, but > comes before the patches that define the corresponding bindings. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 06:30:44PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 09/02/2025 18:28, J. Neuschäfer wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 05:44:59PM -0600, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote: > >> On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 22:30:26 +0100, J. Neuschäfer wrote: > > [...] > >>> .../bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.yaml | 146 +++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> .../devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/lbc.txt | 43 ------ > >>> 2 files changed, 146 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) > > [...] > >> dtschema/dtc warnings/errors: > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.example.dtb: /example-0/localbus@f0010100/simple-periph@2,0: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['fsl,elbc-gpcm-uio'] > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.example.dtb: /example-1/localbus@e0005000/nand@1,0: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['fsl,mpc8315-fcm-nand', 'fsl,elbc-fcm-nand'] > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.example.dtb: /example-1/localbus@e0005000/nand@1,0: failed to match any schema with compatible: ['fsl,mpc8315-fcm-nand', 'fsl,elbc-fcm-nand'] > > > > I think this is due to how the patches are ordered in the series. > > If that's possible, this should be fixed, e.g. by re-ordering the patches. Yes, I'll do that for the next iteration Best regards, J. Neuschäfer
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 10:30:26PM +0100, J. Neuschäfer via B4 Relay wrote: > From: "J. Neuschäfer" <j.ne@posteo.net> > > Convert the Freescale localbus controller bindings from text form to > YAML. The updated list of compatible strings reflects current usage > in arch/powerpc/boot/dts/, except that many existing device trees > erroneously specify "simple-bus" in addition to fsl,*elbc. > > Changes compared to the txt version: > - removed the board-control (fsl,mpc8272ads-bcsr) node because it only > appears in this example and nowhere else > - added a new example with NAND flash > - updated list of compatible strings > > Signed-off-by: J. Neuschäfer <j.ne@posteo.net> > --- > > V2: > - fix order of properties in examples, according to dts coding style > - move to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers > - clarify the commit message a tiny bit > - remove unnecessary multiline markers (|) > - define address format in patternProperties > - trim subject line (remove "binding") > - remove use of "simple-bus", because it's technically incorrect While I admit I haven't been following recent developments in this area, as someone who was involved when "simple-bus" was created (and was on the ePAPR committee that standardized it) I'm surprised to hear simple-bus being called "erroneous" or "technically incorrect" here. For non-NAND devices this bus generally meets the definition of "an internal I/O bus that cannot be probed for devices" where "devices on the bus can be accessed directly without additional configuration required". NAND flash is an exception, but those devices have compatibles that are specific to the bus controller. The fact that the address encoding is non-linear is irrelevant; the addresses can still be translated using the standard "ranges" mechanism. This seems to be a disconnect between the schema verification and the way the compatible has previously been defined and used. And as a practical matter, unless I'm missing something (which I might be since I haven't been in devicetree-land for nearly a decade), Linux is relying on simple-bus to probe these devices. There is a driver that binds to the bus itself but that is just for error interrupts and NAND. You'd probably need something like commit 3e25f800afb82bd9e5f8 ("memory: fsl_ifc: populate child devices without relying on simple-bus") and the subsequent fix in dd8adc713b1656 ("memory: fsl_ifc: populate child nodes of buses and mfd devices")... I'm curious what the reasoning was for removing simple-bus from IFC. It seems that the schema verification also played a role in that: https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg220418.html ...but there's also the comment in 985ede63a045eabf3f9d ("dt-bindings: memory: fsl: convert ifc binding to yaml schema") that "this will help to enforce the correct probe order between parent device and child devices", but was that really not already guaranteed by the parent/child relationship (and again, it should only really matter for NAND except for the possibility of missing error reports during early boot)? > + compatible: > + oneOf: > + - items: > + - enum: > + - fsl,mpc8313-elbc > + - fsl,mpc8315-elbc > + - fsl,mpc8377-elbc > + - fsl,mpc8378-elbc > + - fsl,mpc8379-elbc > + - fsl,mpc8536-elbc > + - fsl,mpc8569-elbc > + - fsl,mpc8572-elbc > + - fsl,p1020-elbc > + - fsl,p1021-elbc > + - fsl,p1023-elbc > + - fsl,p2020-elbc > + - fsl,p2041-elbc > + - fsl,p3041-elbc > + - fsl,p4080-elbc > + - fsl,p5020-elbc > + - fsl,p5040-elbc > + - const: fsl,elbc Is it really necessary to list every single chip? And then it would need to be updated when new ones came out? I know this particular line of chips is not going to see any new members at this point, but as far as the general approach goes... Does the schema validation complain if it sees an extra compatible it doesn't recognize? If so that's obnoxious. > +examples: > + - | > + localbus@f0010100 { > + compatible = "fsl,mpc8272-localbus", > + "fsl,pq2-localbus"; > + reg = <0xf0010100 0x40>; > + ranges = <0x0 0x0 0xfe000000 0x02000000 > + 0x1 0x0 0xf4500000 0x00008000 > + 0x2 0x0 0xfd810000 0x00010000>; > + #address-cells = <2>; > + #size-cells = <1>; > + > + flash@0,0 { > + compatible = "jedec-flash"; > + reg = <0x0 0x0 0x2000000>; > + bank-width = <4>; > + device-width = <1>; > + }; > + > + simple-periph@2,0 { > + compatible = "fsl,elbc-gpcm-uio"; > + reg = <0x2 0x0 0x10000>; > + elbc-gpcm-br = <0xfd810800>; > + elbc-gpcm-or = <0xffff09f7>; > + }; I know this isn't new, but... since we're using this as an example, where is the documentation for this fsl,elbc-gpcm-uio and elbc-gpcm-br/or? What exactly is a simple-periph? There are no in-tree device trees that use this either. The bcsr node was actually a much more normal example, despite that particular platform having been removed. There are other bcsr nodes that still exist that could be used instead. -Crystal
On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 02:31:35PM -0600, Crystal Wood wrote: > On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 10:30:26PM +0100, J. Neuschäfer via B4 Relay wrote: > > + simple-periph@2,0 { > > + compatible = "fsl,elbc-gpcm-uio"; > > + reg = <0x2 0x0 0x10000>; > > + elbc-gpcm-br = <0xfd810800>; > > + elbc-gpcm-or = <0xffff09f7>; > > + }; > > I know this isn't new, but... since we're using this as an example, > where is the documentation for this fsl,elbc-gpcm-uio and > elbc-gpcm-br/or? What exactly is a simple-periph? > > There are no in-tree device trees that use this either. The bcsr > node was actually a much more normal example, despite that particular > platform having been removed. There are other bcsr nodes that still > exist that could be used instead. OK, I noticed patch 10 after I sent this :-P Seems I didn't like it too much when it was new either: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/9/530 And it's still a bad example for how GPCM devices on this bus should normally be represented. -Crystal
On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 02:31:34PM -0600, Crystal Wood wrote: > On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 10:30:26PM +0100, J. Neuschäfer via B4 Relay wrote: > > From: "J. Neuschäfer" <j.ne@posteo.net> > > > > Convert the Freescale localbus controller bindings from text form to > > YAML. The updated list of compatible strings reflects current usage > > in arch/powerpc/boot/dts/, except that many existing device trees > > erroneously specify "simple-bus" in addition to fsl,*elbc. > > > > Changes compared to the txt version: > > - removed the board-control (fsl,mpc8272ads-bcsr) node because it only > > appears in this example and nowhere else > > - added a new example with NAND flash > > - updated list of compatible strings > > > > Signed-off-by: J. Neuschäfer <j.ne@posteo.net> > > --- > > > > V2: > > - fix order of properties in examples, according to dts coding style > > - move to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers > > - clarify the commit message a tiny bit > > - remove unnecessary multiline markers (|) > > - define address format in patternProperties > > - trim subject line (remove "binding") > > - remove use of "simple-bus", because it's technically incorrect > > While I admit I haven't been following recent developments in this area, > as someone who was involved when "simple-bus" was created (and was on the > ePAPR committee that standardized it) I'm surprised to hear simple-bus > being called "erroneous" or "technically incorrect" here. It is quite possible that my understanding of it is incomplete or wrong. > > For non-NAND devices this bus generally meets the definition of "an > internal I/O bus that cannot be probed for devices" where "devices on the > bus can be accessed directly without additional configuration > required". NAND flash is an exception, but those devices have > compatibles that are specific to the bus controller. > > The fact that the address encoding is non-linear is irrelevant; the > addresses can still be translated using the standard "ranges" mechanism. > This seems to be a disconnect between the schema verification and the way > the compatible has previously been defined and used. This is what led me to my assumptions: The simple-bus validation logic in dtc complains about unit addresses such as nand@1,0 which are quite appropriate for the eLBC. > > And as a practical matter, unless I'm missing something (which I might be > since I haven't been in devicetree-land for nearly a decade), Linux is > relying on simple-bus to probe these devices. There is a driver that > binds to the bus itself but that is just for error interrupts and NAND. As of now, yes, that's correct. Without simple-bus, a current Linux kernel doesn't find the device nodes inside such a localbus. > > You'd probably need something like commit 3e25f800afb82bd9e5f8 ("memory: > fsl_ifc: populate child devices without relying on simple-bus") and the > subsequent fix in dd8adc713b1656 ("memory: fsl_ifc: populate child > nodes of buses and mfd devices")... I have prepared such a patch, based on the same assumptions: [PATCH] powerpc/fsl_lbc: Explicitly populate bus https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250209-localbus-v1-1-efcd780153a0@posteo.net/ > > I'm curious what the reasoning was for removing simple-bus from IFC. It > seems that the schema verification also played a role in that: > https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg220418.html Yes, that's the same as my reasoning. > > ...but there's also the comment in 985ede63a045eabf3f9d ("dt-bindings: > memory: fsl: convert ifc binding to yaml schema") that "this will help to > enforce the correct probe order between parent device and child devices", > but was that really not already guaranteed by the parent/child > relationship (and again, it should only really matter for NAND except for > the possibility of missing error reports during early boot)? I'm inclined to agree with you, but it's somewhat beyond my skill level. I'll let Li Yang or Rob Herring comment on that. > > > + compatible: > > + oneOf: > > + - items: > > + - enum: > > + - fsl,mpc8313-elbc > > + - fsl,mpc8315-elbc > > + - fsl,mpc8377-elbc > > + - fsl,mpc8378-elbc > > + - fsl,mpc8379-elbc > > + - fsl,mpc8536-elbc > > + - fsl,mpc8569-elbc > > + - fsl,mpc8572-elbc > > + - fsl,p1020-elbc > > + - fsl,p1021-elbc > > + - fsl,p1023-elbc > > + - fsl,p2020-elbc > > + - fsl,p2041-elbc > > + - fsl,p3041-elbc > > + - fsl,p4080-elbc > > + - fsl,p5020-elbc > > + - fsl,p5040-elbc > > + - const: fsl,elbc > > Is it really necessary to list every single chip? > > And then it would need to be updated when new ones came out? I know this > particular line of chips is not going to see any new members at this > point, but as far as the general approach goes... As far as I'm aware, this reflects common practice today. > > Does the schema validation complain if it sees an extra compatible it > doesn't recognize? If so that's obnoxious. Yes. > > > +examples: > > + - | > > + localbus@f0010100 { > > + compatible = "fsl,mpc8272-localbus", > > + "fsl,pq2-localbus"; > > + reg = <0xf0010100 0x40>; > > + ranges = <0x0 0x0 0xfe000000 0x02000000 > > + 0x1 0x0 0xf4500000 0x00008000 > > + 0x2 0x0 0xfd810000 0x00010000>; > > + #address-cells = <2>; > > + #size-cells = <1>; > > + > > + flash@0,0 { > > + compatible = "jedec-flash"; > > + reg = <0x0 0x0 0x2000000>; > > + bank-width = <4>; > > + device-width = <1>; > > + }; > > + > > + simple-periph@2,0 { > > + compatible = "fsl,elbc-gpcm-uio"; > > + reg = <0x2 0x0 0x10000>; > > + elbc-gpcm-br = <0xfd810800>; > > + elbc-gpcm-or = <0xffff09f7>; > > + }; > > I know this isn't new, but... since we're using this as an example, > where is the documentation for this fsl,elbc-gpcm-uio and > elbc-gpcm-br/or? What exactly is a simple-periph? fsl,elbc-gpcm-uio is handled in the following patch (dt-bindings: memory-controllers: Add fsl,elbc-gpcm-uio). simple-periph is something I haven't thought about, because this whole example comes from the old txt-format binding. The whole purpose of fsl,elbc-gpcm-uio is to allow userspace drivers to interact with localbus devices, so that doesn't make the intention any clearer, either. > > There are no in-tree device trees that use this either. The bcsr > node was actually a much more normal example, despite that particular > platform having been removed. There are other bcsr nodes that still > exist that could be used instead. Ah, fsl,mpc8568mds-bcsr for example, good point. I'll add it back. > > -Crystal Thank you for reaching out! Best regards, J. Neuschäfer
On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 02:31:34PM -0600, Crystal Wood wrote: > On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 10:30:26PM +0100, J. Neuschäfer via B4 Relay wrote: > > From: "J. Neuschäfer" <j.ne@posteo.net> > > > > Convert the Freescale localbus controller bindings from text form to > > YAML. The updated list of compatible strings reflects current usage > > in arch/powerpc/boot/dts/, except that many existing device trees > > erroneously specify "simple-bus" in addition to fsl,*elbc. > > > > Changes compared to the txt version: > > - removed the board-control (fsl,mpc8272ads-bcsr) node because it only > > appears in this example and nowhere else > > - added a new example with NAND flash > > - updated list of compatible strings > > > > Signed-off-by: J. Neuschäfer <j.ne@posteo.net> > > --- > > > > V2: > > - fix order of properties in examples, according to dts coding style > > - move to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers > > - clarify the commit message a tiny bit > > - remove unnecessary multiline markers (|) > > - define address format in patternProperties > > - trim subject line (remove "binding") > > - remove use of "simple-bus", because it's technically incorrect > > While I admit I haven't been following recent developments in this area, > as someone who was involved when "simple-bus" was created (and was on the > ePAPR committee that standardized it) I'm surprised to hear simple-bus > being called "erroneous" or "technically incorrect" here. Erroneous because the binding did not say "simple-bus" was used. Not uncommon with the old .txt bindings. Generally, if a bus has control registers or resources like clocks, then we tend not to call them 'simple-bus'. And '"specific-bus", "simple-bus"' gives some problems around what driver if any do you bind to. If you have chip selects, then you have config registers for those. Not really "simple" if you ask me. That being said, you could keep 'simple-bus' here. I would tend to err on making the schema match the actual .dts rather than updating the .dts files on older platforms like these. > For non-NAND devices this bus generally meets the definition of "an > internal I/O bus that cannot be probed for devices" where "devices on the > bus can be accessed directly without additional configuration > required". NAND flash is an exception, but those devices have > compatibles that are specific to the bus controller. NAND bindings have evolved quite a bit if you haven't been paying attention. > The fact that the address encoding is non-linear is irrelevant; the > addresses can still be translated using the standard "ranges" mechanism. > This seems to be a disconnect between the schema verification and the way > the compatible has previously been defined and used. > > And as a practical matter, unless I'm missing something (which I might be > since I haven't been in devicetree-land for nearly a decade), Linux is > relying on simple-bus to probe these devices. There is a driver that > binds to the bus itself but that is just for error interrupts and NAND. > > You'd probably need something like commit 3e25f800afb82bd9e5f8 ("memory: > fsl_ifc: populate child devices without relying on simple-bus") and the > subsequent fix in dd8adc713b1656 ("memory: fsl_ifc: populate child > nodes of buses and mfd devices")... > > I'm curious what the reasoning was for removing simple-bus from IFC. It > seems that the schema verification also played a role in that: > https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg220418.html If a kernel change is needed to support changed .dts files, then we shouldn't be doing that here (being mature platforms). That would mean new DTB will not work with existing kernels. > > ...but there's also the comment in 985ede63a045eabf3f9d ("dt-bindings: > memory: fsl: convert ifc binding to yaml schema") that "this will help to > enforce the correct probe order between parent device and child devices", > but was that really not already guaranteed by the parent/child > relationship (and again, it should only really matter for NAND except for > the possibility of missing error reports during early boot)? > > > + compatible: > > + oneOf: > > + - items: > > + - enum: > > + - fsl,mpc8313-elbc > > + - fsl,mpc8315-elbc > > + - fsl,mpc8377-elbc > > + - fsl,mpc8378-elbc > > + - fsl,mpc8379-elbc > > + - fsl,mpc8536-elbc > > + - fsl,mpc8569-elbc > > + - fsl,mpc8572-elbc > > + - fsl,p1020-elbc > > + - fsl,p1021-elbc > > + - fsl,p1023-elbc > > + - fsl,p2020-elbc > > + - fsl,p2041-elbc > > + - fsl,p3041-elbc > > + - fsl,p4080-elbc > > + - fsl,p5020-elbc > > + - fsl,p5040-elbc > > + - const: fsl,elbc > > Is it really necessary to list every single chip? Yes. If they exist, they have to be documented. > > And then it would need to be updated when new ones came out? I know this > particular line of chips is not going to see any new members at this > point, but as far as the general approach goes... > > Does the schema validation complain if it sees an extra compatible it > doesn't recognize? If so that's obnoxious. Yes. More annoying is having to boot and debug typos: compatible = "foo,bar", "simplebus"; Rob
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 03:53:24PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 02:31:34PM -0600, Crystal Wood wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 10:30:26PM +0100, J. Neuschäfer via B4 Relay wrote: > > > From: "J. Neuschäfer" <j.ne@posteo.net> > > > > > > Convert the Freescale localbus controller bindings from text form to > > > YAML. The updated list of compatible strings reflects current usage > > > in arch/powerpc/boot/dts/, except that many existing device trees > > > erroneously specify "simple-bus" in addition to fsl,*elbc. > > > > > > Changes compared to the txt version: > > > - removed the board-control (fsl,mpc8272ads-bcsr) node because it only > > > appears in this example and nowhere else > > > - added a new example with NAND flash > > > - updated list of compatible strings > > > > > > Signed-off-by: J. Neuschäfer <j.ne@posteo.net> > > > --- > > > > > > V2: > > > - fix order of properties in examples, according to dts coding style > > > - move to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers > > > - clarify the commit message a tiny bit > > > - remove unnecessary multiline markers (|) > > > - define address format in patternProperties > > > - trim subject line (remove "binding") > > > - remove use of "simple-bus", because it's technically incorrect > > > > While I admit I haven't been following recent developments in this area, > > as someone who was involved when "simple-bus" was created (and was on the > > ePAPR committee that standardized it) I'm surprised to hear simple-bus > > being called "erroneous" or "technically incorrect" here. > > Erroneous because the binding did not say "simple-bus" was used. Not > uncommon with the old .txt bindings. > > Generally, if a bus has control registers or resources like clocks, then > we tend not to call them 'simple-bus'. And '"specific-bus", > "simple-bus"' gives some problems around what driver if any do you > bind to. [...] > > You'd probably need something like commit 3e25f800afb82bd9e5f8 ("memory: > > fsl_ifc: populate child devices without relying on simple-bus") and the > > subsequent fix in dd8adc713b1656 ("memory: fsl_ifc: populate child > > nodes of buses and mfd devices")... > > > > I'm curious what the reasoning was for removing simple-bus from IFC. It > > seems that the schema verification also played a role in that: > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg220418.html > > If a kernel change is needed to support changed .dts files, then we > shouldn't be doing that here (being mature platforms). That would mean > new DTB will not work with existing kernels. Alright, I'll keep simple-bus in the eLBC binding for historical compatibility. Thank you both for your discussion. J. Neuschäfer
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7bc05e3b9ac74125e5786748df57f6cc1255a62d --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,146 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/memory-controllers/fsl,elbc.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# + +title: Freescale Enhanced Local Bus Controller + +maintainers: + - J. Neuschäfer <j.ne@posteo.net> + +properties: + $nodename: + pattern: "^localbus@[0-9a-f]+$" + + compatible: + oneOf: + - items: + - enum: + - fsl,mpc8313-elbc + - fsl,mpc8315-elbc + - fsl,mpc8377-elbc + - fsl,mpc8378-elbc + - fsl,mpc8379-elbc + - fsl,mpc8536-elbc + - fsl,mpc8569-elbc + - fsl,mpc8572-elbc + - fsl,p1020-elbc + - fsl,p1021-elbc + - fsl,p1023-elbc + - fsl,p2020-elbc + - fsl,p2041-elbc + - fsl,p3041-elbc + - fsl,p4080-elbc + - fsl,p5020-elbc + - fsl,p5040-elbc + - const: fsl,elbc + + - items: + - const: fsl,mpc8272-localbus + - const: fsl,pq2-localbus + + - items: + - enum: + - fsl,mpc8247-localbus + - fsl,mpc8248-localbus + - fsl,mpc8360-localbus + - const: fsl,pq2pro-localbus + + - items: + - enum: + - fsl,mpc8540-localbus + - fsl,mpc8544-lbc + - fsl,mpc8544-localbus + - fsl,mpc8548-lbc + - fsl,mpc8548-localbus + - fsl,mpc8560-localbus + - fsl,mpc8568-localbus + - const: fsl,pq3-localbus + + reg: + maxItems: 1 + + interrupts: + maxItems: 1 + + "#address-cells": + enum: [2, 3] + description: + The first cell is the chipselect number, and the remaining cells are the + offset into the chipselect. + + "#size-cells": + enum: [1, 2] + description: + Either one or two, depending on how large each chipselect can be. + + ranges: + description: + Each range corresponds to a single chipselect, and covers the entire + access window as configured. + +patternProperties: + # format: name@chipselect,address + "^.*@[0-9a-f]+,[0-9a-f]+$": + type: object + +additionalProperties: false + +examples: + - | + localbus@f0010100 { + compatible = "fsl,mpc8272-localbus", + "fsl,pq2-localbus"; + reg = <0xf0010100 0x40>; + ranges = <0x0 0x0 0xfe000000 0x02000000 + 0x1 0x0 0xf4500000 0x00008000 + 0x2 0x0 0xfd810000 0x00010000>; + #address-cells = <2>; + #size-cells = <1>; + + flash@0,0 { + compatible = "jedec-flash"; + reg = <0x0 0x0 0x2000000>; + bank-width = <4>; + device-width = <1>; + }; + + simple-periph@2,0 { + compatible = "fsl,elbc-gpcm-uio"; + reg = <0x2 0x0 0x10000>; + elbc-gpcm-br = <0xfd810800>; + elbc-gpcm-or = <0xffff09f7>; + }; + }; + + - | + localbus@e0005000 { + compatible = "fsl,mpc8315-elbc", "fsl,elbc"; + reg = <0xe0005000 0x1000>; + ranges = <0x0 0x0 0xfe000000 0x00800000 + 0x1 0x0 0xe0600000 0x00002000 + 0x2 0x0 0xf0000000 0x00020000 + 0x3 0x0 0xfa000000 0x00008000>; + #address-cells = <2>; + #size-cells = <1>; + interrupts = <77 0x8>; + interrupt-parent = <&ipic>; + + flash@0,0 { + compatible = "cfi-flash"; + reg = <0x0 0x0 0x800000>; + #address-cells = <1>; + #size-cells = <1>; + bank-width = <2>; + device-width = <1>; + }; + + nand@1,0 { + compatible = "fsl,mpc8315-fcm-nand", + "fsl,elbc-fcm-nand"; + reg = <0x1 0x0 0x2000>; + #address-cells = <1>; + #size-cells = <1>; + }; + }; diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/lbc.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/lbc.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 1c80fcedebb52049721fbd61c4dd4c57133bd47c..0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/lbc.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,43 +0,0 @@ -* Chipselect/Local Bus - -Properties: -- name : Should be localbus -- #address-cells : Should be either two or three. The first cell is the - chipselect number, and the remaining cells are the - offset into the chipselect. -- #size-cells : Either one or two, depending on how large each chipselect - can be. -- ranges : Each range corresponds to a single chipselect, and cover - the entire access window as configured. - -Example: - localbus@f0010100 { - compatible = "fsl,mpc8272-localbus", - "fsl,pq2-localbus"; - #address-cells = <2>; - #size-cells = <1>; - reg = <0xf0010100 0x40>; - - ranges = <0x0 0x0 0xfe000000 0x02000000 - 0x1 0x0 0xf4500000 0x00008000 - 0x2 0x0 0xfd810000 0x00010000>; - - flash@0,0 { - compatible = "jedec-flash"; - reg = <0x0 0x0 0x2000000>; - bank-width = <4>; - device-width = <1>; - }; - - board-control@1,0 { - reg = <0x1 0x0 0x20>; - compatible = "fsl,mpc8272ads-bcsr"; - }; - - simple-periph@2,0 { - compatible = "fsl,elbc-gpcm-uio"; - reg = <0x2 0x0 0x10000>; - elbc-gpcm-br = <0xfd810800>; - elbc-gpcm-or = <0xffff09f7>; - }; - };