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;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of amd.com designates
 165.204.84.17 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=165.204.84.17; helo=SATLEXMB04.amd.com; pr=C
From:   Brad Larson <blarson@amd.com>
To:     <arnd@arndb.de>
CC:     <adrian.hunter@intel.com>, <alcooperx@gmail.com>,
        <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>, <blarson@amd.com>,
        <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>, <briannorris@chromium.org>,
        <broonie@kernel.org>, <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        <conor+dt@kernel.org>, <davidgow@google.com>,
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <fancer.lancer@gmail.com>,
        <gerg@linux-m68k.org>, <gsomlo@gmail.com>,
        <hal.feng@starfivetech.com>, <hasegawa-hitomi@fujitsu.com>,
        <j.neuschaefer@gmx.net>, <joel@jms.id.au>, <kernel@esmil.dk>,
        <krzk@kernel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        <lee.jones@linaro.org>, <lee@kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>, <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
        <rdunlap@infradead.org>, <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        <samuel@sholland.org>, <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>, <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        <tonyhuang.sunplus@gmail.com>, <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        <vaishnav.a@ti.com>, <walker.chen@starfivetech.com>,
        <will@kernel.org>, <zhuyinbo@loongson.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 8/8] soc: amd: Add support for AMD Pensando SoC Controller
Date:   Mon, 7 Aug 2023 15:17:54 -0700
Message-ID: <20230807221754.51667-1-blarson@amd.com>
In-Reply-To: <787582a3-51a1-494e-bfd0-b51d1117432e@app.fastmail.com>
References: <787582a3-51a1-494e-bfd0-b51d1117432e@app.fastmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2023 22:18:09.7675
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d29386b3-7d78-42a3-39ae-08db97942ecb
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d;Ip=[165.204.84.17];Helo=[SATLEXMB04.amd.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1PEPF000042AC.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: LV2PR12MB5967
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE
        autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Arnd,

> On Wed, May 24, 2023, at 00:11, Brad Larson wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 15, 2023, at 20:16, Brad Larson wrote:
...
>>> Also, can you explain why this needs a low-lever user interface
>>> in the first place, rather than something that can be expressed
>>> using high-level abstractions as you already do with the reset
>>> control?
>>>
>>> All of the above should be part of the changelog text to get a
>>> driver like this merged. I don't think we can get a quick
>>> solution here though, so maybe you can start by removing the
>>> ioctl side and having the rest of the driver in drivers/reset?

Might be best to pull the whole thing for now until an acceptable 
solution is reached.  The reset function is a recovery mechanisim rarely
used where the byte access to the different IP at the 4 chip-selects
is needed for a system to boot.

>> In the original patchset I added a pensando compatible to spidev and that
>> was nacked in review and reusing some random compatible that made it into 
>> spidev was just wrong.  Further it was recommended this should be a system 
>> specific driver and don't rely on a debug driver like spidev.  I changed 
>> over to a platform specific driver and at that time I also needed to include 
>> a reset controller (emmc reset only).  I put these in drivers/mfd and 
>> drivers/reset.  Review of the device tree for this approach went back and 
>> forth to _not_ have four child nodes on the spi device each with the same 
>> compatible. Decision was to squash the child nodes into the parent and put 
>> the reset-controller there also.  One driver and since its pensando
>> specific its currently in drivers/soc/amd.
>>
>> There are five different user processes and some utilities that access the 
>> functionality in the cpld/fpga.  You're correct, its passing messages that 
>> are specific to the IP accessed via chip-select.  No Elba system will boot 
>> without this driver providing ioctl access.

> Thank you for the detailed summary. Moving away from spidev and
> from mfd seems all reasonable here. I'm still a bit confused by
> why you have multiple chipselects here that are for different
> subdevices but ended with a single user interface for all of them,
> but that's not a big deal.

The goal is to isolate the the kernel from device and platform specific
changes.  All the IO to the spi connected CPLD/FPGA (design/cost dependent)
is a byte at a time or up to 16 bytes for internal flash mgmt.  Performance
is not an issue and spidev was sufficient.

Maybe this paints the right picture to zero in on a correct approach.
Internal and external IP can be present at CS1/CS2 depending on the design
where the CS0 board controller registers get additions over time in a
backward compatible manner.

Design 1: FPGA 
CS0: Board controller registers
CS1: Designware SPI to I2C to board peripherals
CS2: Lattice dual I2C master
CS3: Internal storage

Design 2: CPLD
CS0: Board controller registers
CS1: Not used or some other board specific registers
CS2: Lattice dual I2C master
CS3: Internal storage

> The main bit that sticks out about this high-level design is how
> it relies on user space utilities at all to understand the message
> format. From what I understand about the actual functionality of
> this device, it most closely resembles an embedded controller that
> you might find in a laptop or server machine, and those usually
> have kernel drivers in drivers/platform/ to interact with the
> device.

The dozens of registers at CS0 for board management are defined in
userspace programs or script.  Only the regsiter offset/bit for
emmc reset is needed for the reset function in the patches.

> Has anyone tried to do it like that? Maybe it would help
> to see what the full protocol and the user space side looks
> like, in order to move some or all of it into the kernel.

Looking at drivers/platform its pretty sparse.  What do you 
recommend based on the design 1/2 variations?

Regards,
Brad