[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 39/39] mtd: nand: denali_dt: add compatible strings for UniPhier SoC variants
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Marek Vasut <> wrote:
> On 12/05/2016 05:10 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> Hi Marek,
>> 2016-12-05 12:44 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <>:
>>> On 12/05/2016 04:30 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>>> Hi Dinh,
>>>> 2016-12-04 7:08 GMT+09:00 Dinh Nguyen <>:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Marek Vasut <> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/03/2016 03:41 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>> 2016-12-03 1:26 GMT+09:00 Rob Herring <>:
>>>>>>>>> (Plan A)
>>>>>>>>> "denali,socfpga-nand" (for Altera SOCFPGA variant)
>>>>>>>>> "denali,uniphier-nand-v1" (for old Socionext UniPhier family variant)
>>>>>>>>> "denali,uniphier-nand-v2" (for new Socionext UniPhier family variant)
>>>>>>>>> (Plan B)
>>>>>>>>> "altera,denali-nand" (for Altera SOCFPGA variant)
>>>>>>>>> "socionext,denali-nand-v5a" (for old Socionext UniPhier family variant)
>>>>>>>>> "socionext,denali-nand-v5b" (for new Socionext UniPhier family variant)
>>>>>>>> Let the Altera folks worry about their stuff. At least for soft IP in
>>>>>>>> FPGA, it's a bit of a special case. The old string can remain as bad
>>>>>>>> as it is.
>>>>>>> Hmm, I am not sure if this IP would fit in FPGA
>>>>>>> (to use it along with NIOS-II?)
>>>>>>> (even if it happened, nothing of this IP would be customizable on users' side.
>>>>>>> When buying the IP, SoC vendors submit a list of desired features.
>>>>>>> Denali (now Cadence) generates the RTL according to the configuration sheet.
>>>>>>> The function is fixed at this point. So, generic compatible would be
>>>>>>> useless anyway.)
>>>>>>> If we are talking about SOCFPGA,
>>>>>>> SOCFPGA is not only FPGA. Rather "SOC" + "FPGA".
>>>>>>> It consists of two parts:
>>>>>>> [1] SOC part (Cortex-A9 + various hard-wired peripherals such UART,
>>>>>>> USB, SD, NAND, ...)
>>>>>>> [2] FPGA part (User design logic)
>>>>>>> The Denali NAND controller is included in [1].
>>>>>>> So, as far as we talk about the Denali on SOCFPGA,
>>>>>>> it is as hard-wired as Intel, Socionext's ones.
>>>>>> That's correct, the Denali NAND IP in altera socfpga is a hardware
>>>>>> block. You can make it available to the fabric too, but by default
>>>>>> it's used by the ARM part of the chip, so for this discussion, you
>>>>>> can forget that the FPGA part exists altogether.
>>>>>> I would be in favor of plan B, since it seems to be the more often
>>>>>> taken approach. A nice example is ci-hdrc:
>>>>>> $ git grep compatible drivers/usb/chipidea/
>>>>>>>> I simply would do "socionext,uniphier-v5b-nand" (and v5a).
>>>>>>>> The fact that it is denali is part of the documentation.
>>>>>>> Let me think about this.
>>>>>>> Socionext bought two version of Denali IP,
>>>>>>> and we are now re-using the newer one (v5b) for several SoCs.
>>>>>>> Socionext has some more product lines other than Uniphier SoC family,
>>>>>>> perhaps wider re-use might happen in the future.
>>>>>>> At first, I included "uniphier" in compatible, but I am still wondering
>>>>>>> if such a specific string is good or not.
>>>>>>> Also, comments from Altera engineers are appreciated.
>>>>> Sorry, it's taken me a while to add comments. My altera email is very spotty now
>>>>> that the Intel merge is completed. Please use for any future
>>>>> communications.
>>>>> Yes, everything that is said so far for the NAND controller on the
>>>>> SoCFPGA is correct. I added the binding for the controller a while
>>>>> back, but unfortunately, we never added the NAND interface to the
>>>>> devkit, so we did not do much in terms of enabling it.
>>>>> I think the only SoCFPGA board I know that has the NAND interface active is
>>>>> the TRCom board, but I have never seen that board.
>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on this matter, just as long as the
>>>>> original binding
>>>>> "denali,denali-nand-dt" is kept, and I think Rob was ok with keeping
>>>>> that binding.
>>>> I am proposing to add "altera,denali-nand" for Altera.
>>>> For what, do you need the generic compatible?
>>>> This IP has no default for it to fallback to.
>>> IMO just for compatibility reasons with old DTs .
>> We generally contribute for
>> a "working driver" (at least, should be functional to some extent)
>> and "DT binding" bundled together.
>> However, Altera upstreamed the DT binding first
>> (then some parts of the DT binding turned out wrong),
>> but they did not upstream needed driver changes in the end.
>> So, the mainline driver has never worked on SOCFPGA, right?
> Most likely it never worked, yes.

Right, looking through our downstream support, we may need to upstream a
few changes to make upstream driver work on SoCFPGA.

>> Removing "denali,denali-nand-dt" is not breakage at all,
>> so I do not owe anything to them, right?
> I don't think I'm really qualified to answer this one. But, there is
> drivers/mtd/nand/denali_dt.c , which handles this compatible string
> and it's documented in
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/denali-nand.txt, so doesn't that
> make it part of the ABI ? I think we should
> at least keep it as a fallback, that should be pretty harmless.

I would like to propose "altr,denali-nand" as the binding we use to support the
driver going forward on SoCFPGA hardware. It's pretty much the same as
"altera,denali-nand", just with the correct vendor prefix.

If we can please keep, "denali,denali-nand-dt" only because SoCFPGA is using
this binding downstream, but I know that is a weak argument.


 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-05 21:53    [W:6.519 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site