lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] dt-bindings: nvmem: add binding for QTI SPMI SDAM
On 2020-01-13 21:12, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:54 AM <sthella@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020-01-09 21:01, Rob Herring wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 4:57 AM <sthella@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 2020-01-08 22:09, Rob Herring wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 11:02:12AM +0530, Shyam Kumar Thella wrote:
>> >> >> QTI SDAM allows PMIC peripherals to access the shared memory that is
>> >> >> available on QTI PMICs. Add documentation for it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Shyam Kumar Thella <sthella@codeaurora.org>
>> >> >> ---
>> >> >> .../devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,spmi-sdam.yaml | 79
>> >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> >> 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+)
>> >> >> create mode 100644
>> >> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,spmi-sdam.yaml
>> >> >>
>> >> >> diff --git
>> >> >> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,spmi-sdam.yaml
>> >> >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,spmi-sdam.yaml
>> >> >> new file mode 100644
>> >> >> index 0000000..8961a99
>> >> >> --- /dev/null
>> >> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,spmi-sdam.yaml
>> >> >> @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
>> >> >> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> >> >
>> >> > Dual license new bindings:
>> >> >
>> >> > (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>> >> >
>> >> > Please spread the word in QCom.
>> >> Sure. I will add Dual license in next patchset.
>> >> >
>> >> >> +%YAML 1.2
>> >> >> +---
>> >> >> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/nvmem/qcom,spmi-sdam.yaml#
>> >> >> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> +title: Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. SPMI SDAM DT bindings
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> +maintainers:
>> >> >> + - Shyam Kumar Thella <sthella@codeaurora.org>
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> +description: |
>> >> >> + The SDAM provides scratch register space for the PMIC clients. This
>> >> >> + memory can be used by software to store information or communicate
>> >> >> + to/from the PBUS.
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> +allOf:
>> >> >> + - $ref: "nvmem.yaml#"
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> +properties:
>> >> >> + compatible:
>> >> >> + enum:
>> >> >> + - qcom,spmi-sdam
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + reg:
>> >> >> + maxItems: 1
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + "#address-cells":
>> >> >> + const: 1
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + "#size-cells":
>> >> >> + const: 1
>> >> >
>> >> > ranges? The child addresses should be translateable I assume.
>> >> The addresses are not memory mapped on the CPU's address domain. They
>> >> are the SPMI addresses which can be accessed over SPMI controller.
>> >
>> > Doesn't have to be a CPU address. Are the child offsets within the
>> > range defined in the parent 'reg'? If so, then it should have
>> > 'ranges'.
>> Yes the child offsets fall within parent reg's address space.
>> I will add ranges in the next patch set.
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> +required:
>> >> >> + - compatible
>> >> >> + - reg
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> +patternProperties:
>> >> >> + "^.*@[0-9a-f]+$":
>> >> >> + type: object
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + properties:
>> >> >> + reg:
>> >> >> + maxItems: 1
>> >> >> + description:
>> >> >> + Offset and size in bytes within the storage device.
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + bits:
>> >> >
>> >> > Needs a type reference.
>> >> Yes. I will add a reference in the next patch set.
>> >> >
>> >> >> + maxItems: 1
>> >> >> + items:
>> >> >> + items:
>> >> >> + - minimum: 0
>> >> >> + maximum: 7
>> >> >> + description:
>> >> >> + Offset in bit within the address range specified by
>> >> >> reg.
>> >> >> + - minimum: 1
>> >> >
>> >> > max is 7?
>> >> I don't think it is limited to 7 as it is the size within the address
>> >> range specified by reg. If the address range is more than a byte size
>> >> can be more.
>> >
>> > Then why is the maximum offset 7?
>> I see. Offset can be more than 7 within the address range specified in
>> case
>> of data cells with more than a byte. I will remove maximum in the next
>> patch set.
>
> That's the wrong thing to do though. If the offset is more than 7, you
> should just increase 'reg' value. IOW, 'bits' should only be used to
> express bit position up to the minimum alignment of 'reg'. I guess you
> could have an unaligned multi-byte field, so I guess this is fine
> as-is.
>
> Rob
Okay.

Regards,
Shyam

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-14 08:07    [W:0.037 / U:7.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site