lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] devicetree: add binding for Aurora VLSI NB8800 Ethernet controller
Date
Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@sigmadesigns.com> writes:

> On 23/10/2015 15:41, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/10/2015 16:02, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>>>
>>>> This adds a binding for the Aurora VLSI NB8800 Ethernet controller
>>>> using the "aurora,nb8800" compatible string. When used in Sigma
>>>> Designs chips a few additional control registers are available.
>>>> This variant is indicated by the "sigma,smp8640-ethernet" compatible
>>>> string.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mans Rullgard <mans@mansr.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/net/aurora,nb8800.txt | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/aurora,nb8800.txt
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/aurora,nb8800.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/aurora,nb8800.txt
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..c19f615
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/aurora,nb8800.txt
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
>>>> +* Aurora VLSI AU-NB8800 Ethernet controller
>>>> +
>>>> +Required properties:
>>>> +- compatible: Should be "aurora,nb8800", "sigma,smp8640-ethernet"
>>>> + The latter indicates presence of extra features added by Sigma Designs.
>>>
>>> I've been meaning to ask a noob question to the devicetree group
>>> about how names for compatible strings are chosen.
>>>
>>> Sigma Designs has two active SoC families, Tango3 (which consists of
>>> about a dozen MIPS-based SoCs, typically named SMP86xx) and Tango4
>>> (a few ARM-based SoCs, typically named SMP87xx). I should note that
>>> there is no SMP8640 SoC AFAIK, rather SMP864x is a Tango3 sub-family
>>> (I could locate 42,43,44,45,46).
>>>
>>> AFAIK, all our SoCs are using the same Aurora NB8800 Ethernet MAC,
>>> along with the extra features. I find it odd to use a specific SoC
>>> model to refer to this device, instead of a more generic name.
>>> (It's weird having to mention smp8640 in the tango4 DT.)
>>
>> I picked 8640 since all 8640 or higher chips are compatible (863x chips
>> (tango2) are not). Some of the later versions have additional extra
>> features, but they all work with the basic driver.
>>
>> There also appear to be some differences (bug fixes?) between 8643 and
>> 8759 (the ones I have) not documented anywhere.
>
> I'm trying to locate someone who would know these kinds of details.

More specifically, the DMA completion interrupts seem to behave
differently.

>>> I thought one had to specify also whether the device sent "edge"
>>> or "level" IRQs?
>>
>> Depends on the interrupt controller. This is just an example.
>
> Sorry for the noise. (I thought edge/level was a device property,
> as in "I'll just pulse that IRQ, or I'll hold it until someone
> asks me to shut up.")

Most devices keep the interrupt request line high until explicitly
cleared by a driver. Whether you want edge or level triggering depends
on the driver design and if the interrupt is shared with other devices.

--
Måns Rullgård
mans@mansr.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-10-23 16:21    [W:0.110 / U:0.896 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site