[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [reset-control] How to initialize hardware state with the shared reset line?

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 3:27 AM, Masahiro Yamada
<> wrote:
> Hi.
> 2018-05-20 19:57 GMT+09:00 Martin Blumenstingl
> <>:
>> Hi,
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Masahiro Yamada
>> <> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> I may be missing something, but
>>> one solution might be reset hogging on the
>>> reset provider side. This allows us to describe
>>> the initial state of reset lines in the reset controller.
>>> The idea for "reset-hog" is similar to:
>>> - "gpio-hog" defined in
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt
>>> - "assigned-clocks" defined in
>>> Documetation/devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt
>>> For example,
>>> reset-controller {
>>> ....
>>> line_a {
>>> reset-hog;
>>> resets = <1>;
>>> reset-assert;
>>> };
>>> }
>>> When the reset controller is registered,
>>> the reset ID '1' is asserted.
>>> So, all reset consumers that share the reset line '1'
>>> will start from the asserted state
>>> (i.e. defined state machine state).
>> I wonder if a "reset hog" can be board specific:
>> - GPIO hogs are definitely board specific (meson-gxbb-odroidc2.dts for
>> example uses it to take the USB hub out of reset)
>> - assigned-clock-parents (and the like) can also be board specific (I
>> made up a use-case since I don't know of any actual examples: board A
>> uses an external XTAL while board B uses some other internal
>> clock-source because it doesn't have an external XTAL)
>> however, can reset lines be board specific? or in other words: do we
>> need to describe them in device-tree?
> Indeed.
> I did not come up with board-specific cases.
> The problem we are discussing is SoC-specific,
> and reset-controller drivers are definitely SoC-specific.
> So, I think the initial state can be coded in drivers instead of DT.
OK, let's also hear Philipp's (reset framework maintainer) opinion on this

>> we could extend struct reset_controller_dev (= reset controller
>> driver) if they are not board specific:
>> - either assert all reset lines by default except if they are listed
>> in a new field (may break backwards compatibility, requires testing of
>> all reset controller drivers)
> This is quite simple, but I am afraid there are some cases where the forcible
> reset-assert is not preferred.
> For example, the earlycon. When we use earlycon, we would expect it has been
> initialized by a boot-loader, or something.
> If it is reset-asserted on the while, the console output
> will not be good.
indeed, so let's skip this idea

>> - specify a list of reset lines and their desired state (or to keep it
>> easy: specify a list of reset lines that should be asserted)
>> (I must admit that this is basically your idea but the definition is
>> moved from device-tree to the reset controller driver)
> Yes, I think the list of "reset line ID" and "init state" pairs
> would be nicer.
$ grep -R "of_reset_n_cells = [^1]" drivers/reset/
drivers/reset/reset-berlin.c: priv->rcdev.of_reset_n_cells = 2;
drivers/reset/hisilicon/reset-hi3660.c: rc->rst.of_reset_n_cells = 2;
drivers/reset/reset-ti-sci.c: data->rcdev.of_reset_n_cells = 2;
drivers/reset/reset-lantiq.c: priv->rcdev.of_reset_n_cells = 2;

everything else uses only one reset cell
from the lantiq reset dt-binding documentation: "The first cell takes
the reset set bit and the second cell takes the status bit."

I'm not sure what to do with drivers that specify != 1 reset-cell
though if we use a simple "init state pair"
maybe Philipp can share his opinion on this one as well

>> any "chip" specific differences could be expressed by using a
>> different of_device_id
>> one the other hand: your "reset hog" solution looks fine to me if
>> reset lines can be board specific
>>> From the discussion with Martin Blumenstingl
>>> (,
>>> the problem for Amlogic is that
>>> the reset line is "de-asserted" by default.
>>> If so, the 'reset-hog' would fix the problem,
>>> and DWC3 driver would be able to use
>>> shared, level reset, I think.
>> I think you are right: if we could control the initial state then we
>> should be able to use level resets
> Even further, can we drop the shared reset_control_reset() support, maybe?
> (in other words, revert commit 7da33a37b48f11)
I believe we need to keep this if there's hardware out there:
- where the reset controller only supports reset pulses
- at least one reset line is shared between multiple devices

I didn't have a closer look at the Amlogic Meson6 SoC yet, but I think
it matches above criteria. as far as I know:
- the USB situation there is similar to Meson8b (USB controllers and
PHYs share a reset line)
- it uses an older reset controller IP block which does not support
level resets (only reset pulses)

> Thanks for your comment!
you're welcome - thank you for bringing up this topic also :)


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-21 12:42    [W:0.062 / U:2.504 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site