Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <5c45d89b-00c5-a330-2e1f-b99043736527@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:21:33 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: reset: Updated binding for Versal-NET
 reset driver
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
To:     Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com>,
        Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>,
        Piyush Mehta <piyush.mehta@amd.com>
Cc:     robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
        conor+dt@kernel.org, p.zabel@pengutronix.de,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        git@amd.com
References: <20230717112348.1381367-1-piyush.mehta@amd.com>
 <20230717112348.1381367-2-piyush.mehta@amd.com>
 <20230717-explode-caucus-82c12e340e39@spud>
 <ee81e955-32be-66ea-377b-263ee60a2632@linaro.org>
 <e8f48a30-9aff-bc2f-d03f-793840a192c9@amd.com>
 <694a1314-0b25-ff5e-b19f-5a0efe07bf64@linaro.org>
 <cae162d0-843d-ca1f-80d3-5a0dfe1e3d0f@amd.com>
 <22e7dc73-2411-5cb1-6cef-daa5f2af8297@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <22e7dc73-2411-5cb1-6cef-daa5f2af8297@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 18/07/2023 15:20, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 18/07/2023 15:11, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That numbers in DT are virtual no matter if you use ID from 0 to max or random
>>>> values it is up to code to handle them. Checking nr_pins against ID is done in
>>>> core but it is up to drivers.
>>>
>>> No, you confuse "virtual" and "ID". IDs are not virtual. IDs are real
>>> and have representation in Linux driver. You do not need to define
>>> anything virtual in the bindings.
>>
>> Not sure how you define ID itself. But HW doesn't know ID. HW knows only 
>> register which you can use to perform the reset. It is not really 128bit 
>> register where every bit targets to different IP.
>>
>> And this is SW-firmware interface like SCMI reset driver.
>>
>> Firmware is saying that ID 0 is QSPI, ID 1 is MMC.
>> Their Linux driver is asking for nr_reset via firmware call which can be 
>> different for different SOC and that's fine and I have no problem with it.
>> But only SCMI server is dictating that ID 0 is QSPI and ID 1 is MMC. Different 
>> SCMI server implementation can map it differently.
> 
> Sure, and all this points to: no need for bindings.
> 
>>
>>
>>>> In our case that IDs are coming from firmware and driver itself is just matching
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> So they are the same as if coming from hardware - no need for IDs.
>>
>> It is hard to say what hardware here exactly is. From my perspective and I am 
>> not advocating not using IDs from 0 to max, it is just a number.
>>
>> If my firmware knows that QSPI reset is 0xc10402dU then I will just pass it to 
>> reach my goal which is reset QSPI IP.
>>
>> If you think that we should use IDs from 0 to max NR I am happy to pass this 
>> message to PM team and we should extend any SW to do translation between.
> 
> When we talk about IDs and bindings, we mean IDs meaningful to Linux.
> Whatever is ignored by Linux and passed to anyone else - hardware or
> firmware - is not a ID anymore from bindings point of view. It's just
> some value.

And just some proofs:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/dt-bindings/reset/xlnx-versal-resets.h?h=v6.5-rc2
$ git grep VERSAL_RST
Results: No users.

Best regards,
Krzysztof