LLCC behaviour is controlled by the configuration data set
in the llcc-qcom driver, add the same for SC7180 SoC.
Also convert the existing bindings to json-schema and add
the compatible for SC7180 SoC.
v2:
* Convert bindings to YAML and add compatible for SC7180
* Address Stephen's comments on const
Sai Prakash Ranjan (2):
dt-bindings: msm: Convert LLCC bindings to YAML
dt-bindings: msm: Add LLCC for SC7180
Vivek Gautam (1):
soc: qcom: llcc: Add configuration data for SC7180
.../devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt | 41 --------------
.../bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.yaml | 55 +++++++++++++++++++
drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c | 15 ++++-
3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.yaml
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
Convert LLCC bindings to DT schema format using json-schema.
Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <[email protected]>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt | 41 --------------
.../bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.yaml | 54 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.yaml
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index eaee06b2d8f2..000000000000
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,41 +0,0 @@
-== Introduction==
-
-LLCC (Last Level Cache Controller) provides last level of cache memory in SOC,
-that can be shared by multiple clients. Clients here are different cores in the
-SOC, the idea is to minimize the local caches at the clients and migrate to
-common pool of memory. Cache memory is divided into partitions called slices
-which are assigned to clients. Clients can query the slice details, activate
-and deactivate them.
-
-Properties:
-- compatible:
- Usage: required
- Value type: <string>
- Definition: must be "qcom,sdm845-llcc"
-
-- reg:
- Usage: required
- Value Type: <prop-encoded-array>
- Definition: The first element specifies the llcc base start address and
- the size of the register region. The second element specifies
- the llcc broadcast base address and size of the register region.
-
-- reg-names:
- Usage: required
- Value Type: <stringlist>
- Definition: Register region names. Must be "llcc_base", "llcc_broadcast_base".
-
-- interrupts:
- Usage: required
- Definition: The interrupt is associated with the llcc edac device.
- It's used for llcc cache single and double bit error detection
- and reporting.
-
-Example:
-
- cache-controller@1100000 {
- compatible = "qcom,sdm845-llcc";
- reg = <0x1100000 0x200000>, <0x1300000 0x50000> ;
- reg-names = "llcc_base", "llcc_broadcast_base";
- interrupts = <GIC_SPI 582 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
- };
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..5ac90d101807
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause)
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: Last Level Cache Controller
+
+maintainers:
+ - Rishabh Bhatnagar <[email protected]>
+ - Sai Prakash Ranjan <[email protected]>
+
+description: |
+ LLCC (Last Level Cache Controller) provides last level of cache memory in SoC,
+ that can be shared by multiple clients. Clients here are different cores in the
+ SoC, the idea is to minimize the local caches at the clients and migrate to
+ common pool of memory. Cache memory is divided into partitions called slices
+ which are assigned to clients. Clients can query the slice details, activate
+ and deactivate them.
+
+properties:
+ compatible:
+ enum:
+ - qcom,sdm845-llcc
+
+ reg:
+ items:
+ - description: LLCC base register region
+ - description: LLCC broadcast base register region
+
+ reg-names:
+ items:
+ - const: llcc_base
+ - const: llcc_broadcast_base
+
+ interrupts:
+ maxItems: 1
+
+required:
+ - compatible
+ - reg
+ - reg-names
+ - interrupts
+
+examples:
+ - |
+ #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
+
+ cache-controller@1100000 {
+ compatible = "qcom,sdm845-llcc";
+ reg = <0x1100000 0x200000>, <0x1300000 0x50000> ;
+ reg-names = "llcc_base", "llcc_broadcast_base";
+ interrupts = <GIC_SPI 582 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
+ };
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
Add LLCC compatible for SC7180 SoC.
Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.yaml | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.yaml
index 5ac90d101807..558749065b97 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.yaml
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ description: |
properties:
compatible:
enum:
+ - qcom,sc7180-llcc
- qcom,sdm845-llcc
reg:
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2019-10-19 04:37:12)
> Convert LLCC bindings to DT schema format using json-schema.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <[email protected]>
> ---
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2019-10-19 04:37:13)
> Add LLCC compatible for SC7180 SoC.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <[email protected]>
> ---
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
On Sat 19 Oct 04:37 PDT 2019, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> LLCC behaviour is controlled by the configuration data set
> in the llcc-qcom driver, add the same for SC7180 SoC.
> Also convert the existing bindings to json-schema and add
> the compatible for SC7180 SoC.
>
Thanks for the patches and thanks for the review Stephen. Series applied
Regards,
Bjorn
> v2:
> * Convert bindings to YAML and add compatible for SC7180
> * Address Stephen's comments on const
>
> Sai Prakash Ranjan (2):
> dt-bindings: msm: Convert LLCC bindings to YAML
> dt-bindings: msm: Add LLCC for SC7180
>
> Vivek Gautam (1):
> soc: qcom: llcc: Add configuration data for SC7180
>
> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt | 41 --------------
> .../bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.yaml | 55 +++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c | 15 ++++-
> 3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
> delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.yaml
>
> --
> QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
> of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
>
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:32 PM Bjorn Andersson
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sat 19 Oct 04:37 PDT 2019, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>
> > LLCC behaviour is controlled by the configuration data set
> > in the llcc-qcom driver, add the same for SC7180 SoC.
> > Also convert the existing bindings to json-schema and add
> > the compatible for SC7180 SoC.
> >
>
> Thanks for the patches and thanks for the review Stephen. Series applied
And they break dt_binding_check. Please fix.
Rob
Hi Rob,
On 2019-10-24 01:19, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:32 PM Bjorn Andersson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat 19 Oct 04:37 PDT 2019, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>>
>> > LLCC behaviour is controlled by the configuration data set
>> > in the llcc-qcom driver, add the same for SC7180 SoC.
>> > Also convert the existing bindings to json-schema and add
>> > the compatible for SC7180 SoC.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for the patches and thanks for the review Stephen. Series
>> applied
>
> And they break dt_binding_check. Please fix.
>
I did check this and think that the error log from dt_binding_check is
not valid because it says cache-level is a required property [1], but
there is no such property in LLCC bindings.
[1] - http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1179800/
-Sai
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 6:00 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 2019-10-24 01:19, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:32 PM Bjorn Andersson
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat 19 Oct 04:37 PDT 2019, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> >>
> >> > LLCC behaviour is controlled by the configuration data set
> >> > in the llcc-qcom driver, add the same for SC7180 SoC.
> >> > Also convert the existing bindings to json-schema and add
> >> > the compatible for SC7180 SoC.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Thanks for the patches and thanks for the review Stephen. Series
> >> applied
> >
> > And they break dt_binding_check. Please fix.
> >
>
> I did check this and think that the error log from dt_binding_check is
> not valid because it says cache-level is a required property [1], but
> there is no such property in LLCC bindings.
Then you should point out the issue and not just submit stuff ignoring
it. It has to be resolved one way or another.
If you refer to the DT spec[1], cache-level is required. The schema is
just enforcing that now. It's keying off the node name of
'cache-controller'.
Rob
[1] https://github.com/devicetree-org/devicetree-specification/blob/master/source/devicenodes.rst#multi-level-and-shared-cache-nodes-cpuscpul-cache
On 2019-10-25 04:03, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 6:00 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> On 2019-10-24 01:19, Rob Herring wrote:
>> > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:32 PM Bjorn Andersson
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat 19 Oct 04:37 PDT 2019, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > LLCC behaviour is controlled by the configuration data set
>> >> > in the llcc-qcom driver, add the same for SC7180 SoC.
>> >> > Also convert the existing bindings to json-schema and add
>> >> > the compatible for SC7180 SoC.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the patches and thanks for the review Stephen. Series
>> >> applied
>> >
>> > And they break dt_binding_check. Please fix.
>> >
>>
>> I did check this and think that the error log from dt_binding_check is
>> not valid because it says cache-level is a required property [1], but
>> there is no such property in LLCC bindings.
>
> Then you should point out the issue and not just submit stuff ignoring
> it. It has to be resolved one way or another.
>
I did not ignore it. When I ran the dt-binding check locally, it did not
error out and just passed on [1] and it was my bad that I did not check
the entire build logs to see if llcc dt binding check had some warning
or
not. But this is the usual case where most of us don't look at the
entire
build logs to check if there is a warning or not. We notice if there is
an
immediate exit/fail in case of some warning/error. So it would be good
if
we fail the dt-binding check build if there is some warning/error or
atleast
provide some option to strict build to fail on warning, maybe there is
already
a flag to do this?
After submitting the patch, I noticed this build failure on
patchwork.ozlabs.org and was waiting for your reply.
[1] https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/jNK8yfVkMG/
> If you refer to the DT spec[1], cache-level is required. The schema is
> just enforcing that now. It's keying off the node name of
> 'cache-controller'.
>
This is not L2 or L3 cache, this is a system cache (last level cache)
shared by
clients other than just CPU. So I don't know how do we specify
cache-level for
this, let me know if you have some pointers.
-Sai
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
Hello Rob,
On 2019-10-25 13:24, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> On 2019-10-25 04:03, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 6:00 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> On 2019-10-24 01:19, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:32 PM Bjorn Andersson
>>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sat 19 Oct 04:37 PDT 2019, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > LLCC behaviour is controlled by the configuration data set
>>> >> > in the llcc-qcom driver, add the same for SC7180 SoC.
>>> >> > Also convert the existing bindings to json-schema and add
>>> >> > the compatible for SC7180 SoC.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for the patches and thanks for the review Stephen. Series
>>> >> applied
>>> >
>>> > And they break dt_binding_check. Please fix.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I did check this and think that the error log from dt_binding_check
>>> is
>>> not valid because it says cache-level is a required property [1], but
>>> there is no such property in LLCC bindings.
>>
>> Then you should point out the issue and not just submit stuff ignoring
>> it. It has to be resolved one way or another.
>>
>
> I did not ignore it. When I ran the dt-binding check locally, it did
> not
> error out and just passed on [1] and it was my bad that I did not check
> the entire build logs to see if llcc dt binding check had some warning
> or
> not. But this is the usual case where most of us don't look at the
> entire
> build logs to check if there is a warning or not. We notice if there is
> an
> immediate exit/fail in case of some warning/error. So it would be good
> if
> we fail the dt-binding check build if there is some warning/error or
> atleast
> provide some option to strict build to fail on warning, maybe there is
> already
> a flag to do this?
>
> After submitting the patch, I noticed this build failure on
> patchwork.ozlabs.org and was waiting for your reply.
>
> [1] https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/jNK8yfVkMG/
>
>> If you refer to the DT spec[1], cache-level is required. The schema is
>> just enforcing that now. It's keying off the node name of
>> 'cache-controller'.
>>
>
> This is not L2 or L3 cache, this is a system cache (last level cache)
> shared by
> clients other than just CPU. So I don't know how do we specify
> cache-level for
> this, let me know if you have some pointers.
>
Any ideas on specifying the cache-level for system cache? Does
dt-binding-check
needs to be updated for this case?
Thanks,
Sai
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2019-11-13 07:00:40)
> Hello Rob,
>
> On 2019-10-25 13:24, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> > On 2019-10-25 04:03, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 6:00 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Rob,
> >>>
> >>> On 2019-10-24 01:19, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>> > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:32 PM Bjorn Andersson
> >>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Sat 19 Oct 04:37 PDT 2019, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > LLCC behaviour is controlled by the configuration data set
> >>> >> > in the llcc-qcom driver, add the same for SC7180 SoC.
> >>> >> > Also convert the existing bindings to json-schema and add
> >>> >> > the compatible for SC7180 SoC.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thanks for the patches and thanks for the review Stephen. Series
> >>> >> applied
> >>> >
> >>> > And they break dt_binding_check. Please fix.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> I did check this and think that the error log from dt_binding_check
> >>> is
> >>> not valid because it says cache-level is a required property [1], but
> >>> there is no such property in LLCC bindings.
> >>
> >> Then you should point out the issue and not just submit stuff ignoring
> >> it. It has to be resolved one way or another.
> >>
> >
> > I did not ignore it. When I ran the dt-binding check locally, it did
> > not
> > error out and just passed on [1] and it was my bad that I did not check
> > the entire build logs to see if llcc dt binding check had some warning
> > or
> > not. But this is the usual case where most of us don't look at the
> > entire
> > build logs to check if there is a warning or not. We notice if there is
> > an
> > immediate exit/fail in case of some warning/error. So it would be good
> > if
> > we fail the dt-binding check build if there is some warning/error or
> > atleast
> > provide some option to strict build to fail on warning, maybe there is
> > already
> > a flag to do this?
> >
> > After submitting the patch, I noticed this build failure on
> > patchwork.ozlabs.org and was waiting for your reply.
> >
> > [1] https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/jNK8yfVkMG/
> >
> >> If you refer to the DT spec[1], cache-level is required. The schema is
> >> just enforcing that now. It's keying off the node name of
> >> 'cache-controller'.
> >>
> >
> > This is not L2 or L3 cache, this is a system cache (last level cache)
> > shared by
> > clients other than just CPU. So I don't know how do we specify
> > cache-level for
> > this, let me know if you have some pointers.
> >
>
> Any ideas on specifying the cache-level for system cache? Does
> dt-binding-check
> needs to be updated for this case?
>
I don't see how 'cache-level' fits here. Maybe the node name should be
changed to 'system-cache-controller' and then the schema checker can
skip it?
On 2019-11-14 22:19, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2019-11-13 07:00:40)
>> Hello Rob,
>>
>> On 2019-10-25 13:24, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> > On 2019-10-25 04:03, Rob Herring wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 6:00 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Rob,
>> >>>
>> >>> On 2019-10-24 01:19, Rob Herring wrote:
>> >>> > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:32 PM Bjorn Andersson
>> >>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Sat 19 Oct 04:37 PDT 2019, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> > LLCC behaviour is controlled by the configuration data set
>> >>> >> > in the llcc-qcom driver, add the same for SC7180 SoC.
>> >>> >> > Also convert the existing bindings to json-schema and add
>> >>> >> > the compatible for SC7180 SoC.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Thanks for the patches and thanks for the review Stephen. Series
>> >>> >> applied
>> >>> >
>> >>> > And they break dt_binding_check. Please fix.
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> I did check this and think that the error log from dt_binding_check
>> >>> is
>> >>> not valid because it says cache-level is a required property [1], but
>> >>> there is no such property in LLCC bindings.
>> >>
>> >> Then you should point out the issue and not just submit stuff ignoring
>> >> it. It has to be resolved one way or another.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I did not ignore it. When I ran the dt-binding check locally, it did
>> > not
>> > error out and just passed on [1] and it was my bad that I did not check
>> > the entire build logs to see if llcc dt binding check had some warning
>> > or
>> > not. But this is the usual case where most of us don't look at the
>> > entire
>> > build logs to check if there is a warning or not. We notice if there is
>> > an
>> > immediate exit/fail in case of some warning/error. So it would be good
>> > if
>> > we fail the dt-binding check build if there is some warning/error or
>> > atleast
>> > provide some option to strict build to fail on warning, maybe there is
>> > already
>> > a flag to do this?
>> >
>> > After submitting the patch, I noticed this build failure on
>> > patchwork.ozlabs.org and was waiting for your reply.
>> >
>> > [1] https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/jNK8yfVkMG/
>> >
>> >> If you refer to the DT spec[1], cache-level is required. The schema is
>> >> just enforcing that now. It's keying off the node name of
>> >> 'cache-controller'.
>> >>
>> >
>> > This is not L2 or L3 cache, this is a system cache (last level cache)
>> > shared by
>> > clients other than just CPU. So I don't know how do we specify
>> > cache-level for
>> > this, let me know if you have some pointers.
>> >
>>
>> Any ideas on specifying the cache-level for system cache? Does
>> dt-binding-check
>> needs to be updated for this case?
>>
>
> I don't see how 'cache-level' fits here. Maybe the node name should be
> changed to 'system-cache-controller' and then the schema checker can
> skip it?
Sounds good and correct. I made this change and ran the dt binding check
and no warning was observed.
Sent a patch -
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
-Sai
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation