[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: a case for a common efuse API?
On 07/10/2014 05:26 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 04:32:03PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 07/09/14 01:35, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 01:00:23PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> On MSM chips we have some efuses (called qfprom) where we store things
>>>> like calibration data, speed bins, etc. We need to read out data from
>>>> the efuses in various drivers like the cpufreq, thermal, etc. This
>>>> essentially boils down to a bunch of readls on the efuse from a handful
>>>> of different drivers. In devicetree this looks a little odd because
>>>> these drivers end up having an extra reg property (or two) that points
>>>> to a register in the efuse and some length, i.e you see this:
>>>> thermal-sensor@34000 {
>>>> compatible = "sensor";
>>>> reg = <0x34000 0x1000>, <0x10018 0xc>;
>>>> reg-names = "sensor", "efuse_calib";
>>>> }
>>>> I imagine in DT we want something more like this:
>>>> efuse: efuse@10000 {
>>>> compatible = "efuse";
>>>> reg = <0x10000 0x1000>;
>>>> }
>>>> thermal-sensor@34000 {
>>>> compatible = "sensor";
>>>> reg = <0x34000 0x1000>;
>>>> efuse = <&efuse 0x18>;
>>>> }

Why don't use "syscon" framework for your needs? (mfd/syscon.c)

>>> We have pretty much the same things in the Allwinner SoCs. We have an
>>> efuse directly mapped into memory, with a few informations like a MAC
>>> address, the SoC ID, the serial number, some RSA keys for the device,
>>> etc.
>>> The thing is, some boards expose these informations in an external
>>> EEPROM as well.
>>> I started working and went quite far to create an "eeprom" framework
>>> to handle these cases, with a dt representation similar to what you
>>> were exposing.
>>> It was working quite well, I was about to send it, but was told that I
>>> should all be moved to MTD, and given up on it.
>> Did anything ever get merged? Or the whole thing was dropped?
> Nope, I just never posted it. I could send it as an RFC though, and
> see what are the feedbacks.
>> That branch looks like what I want, assuming we could get an agreement
>> on the binding. It looks like pretty much every SoC has this, and there
>> isn't any API or binding for it that I've seen. The only thing I see is
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom.txt and that doesn't cover the
>> client aspect at all.
>> Taking a quick peek at the code, it might be better to change the read
>> API to take a buffer and length, so that the caller doesn't need to free
>> the data allocated by the eeprom layer. It also makes it symmetrical
>> with the write API. We'd probably also need to make it work really early
>> for SoC's like Tegra where we want to read the SoC revision early. So
>> probably split off the device registration part to a later time to allow
>> register() to be called early.
> I guess that the kind of things we could discuss after posting these
> patches, but yep, it looks reasonnable.
> I'll try to get things a bit cleaner, and post them in the next days.


 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-10 18:01    [W:0.111 / U:5.788 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site