Re: [PATCH v1 08/16] arm64: dts: mt8195: Add power domains controller

[AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>]

Il 12/07/22 14:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
> On 12/07/2022 14:54, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> Il 12/07/22 14:47, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
>>> On 12/07/2022 12:33, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>>> Il 12/07/22 11:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
>>>>> On 12/07/2022 10:53, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>>>>> Il 12/07/22 10:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
>>>>>>> On 12/07/2022 10:17, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>>>>>>> Il 06/07/22 17:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
>>>>>>>>> On 06/07/2022 14:00, Tinghan Shen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After discussing your message with our power team,
>>>>>>>>>> we realized that we need your help to ensure we fully understand you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2022-07-04 at 14:38 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/07/2022 12:00, Tinghan Shen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Add power domains controller node for mt8195.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Weiyi Lu <weiyi.lu@mediatek.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tinghan Shen <tinghan.shen@mediatek.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>       arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8195.dtsi | 327 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>       1 file changed, 327 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8195.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8195.dtsi
>>>>>>>>>>>> index 8d59a7da3271..d52e140d9271 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8195.dtsi
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8195.dtsi
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>       #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
>>>>>>>>>>>>       #include <dt-bindings/phy/phy.h>
>>>>>>>>>>>>       #include <dt-bindings/pinctrl/mt8195-pinfunc.h>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +#include <dt-bindings/power/mt8195-power.h>
>>>>>>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>>>>>>       / {
>>>>>>>>>>>>       	compatible = "mediatek,mt8195";
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -338,6 +339,332 @@
>>>>>>>>>>>>       			#interrupt-cells = <2>;
>>>>>>>>>>>>       		};
>>>>>>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>>>>>> +		scpsys: syscon@10006000 {
>>>>>>>>>>>> +			compatible = "syscon", "simple-mfd";
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> These compatibles cannot be alone.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the scpsys sub node has the compatible of the power domain driver.
>>>>>>>>>> do you suggest that the compatible in the sub node should move to here?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not necessarily, depends. You have here device node representing system
>>>>>>>>> registers. They need they own compatibles, just like everywhere in the
>>>>>>>>> kernel (except the broken cases...).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whether this should be compatible of power-domain driver, it depends
>>>>>>>>> what this device node is. I don't know, I don't have your datasheets or
>>>>>>>>> your architecture diagrams...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +			reg = <0 0x10006000 0 0x1000>;
>>>>>>>>>>>> +			#power-domain-cells = <1>;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If it is simple MFD, then probably it is not a power domain provider.
>>>>>>>>>>> Decide.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> this MFD device is the power controller on mt8195.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then it is not a simple MFD but a power controller. Do not use
>>>>>>>>> "simple-mfd" compatible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some features need
>>>>>>>>>> to do some operations on registers in this node. We think that implement
>>>>>>>>>> the operation of these registers as the MFD device can provide flexibility
>>>>>>>>>> for future use. We want to clarify if you're saying that an MFD device
>>>>>>>>>> cannot be a power domain provider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MFD device is Linuxism, so it has nothing to do here. I am talking only
>>>>>>>>> about simple-mfd. simple-mfd is a simple device only instantiating
>>>>>>>>> children and not providing anything to anyone. Neither to children. This
>>>>>>>>>       the most important part. The children do not depend on anything from
>>>>>>>>> simple-mfd device. For example simple-mfd device can be shut down
>>>>>>>>> (gated) and children should still operate. Being a power domain
>>>>>>>>> controller, contradicts this usually.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If my interpretation of this issue is right, I have pushed a solution for it.
>>>>>>>> Krzysztof, Matthias, can you please check [1] and give feedback, so that
>>>>>>>> Tinghan can rewrite this commit ASAP?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reason is - I need the MT8195 devicetree to be complete to push the remaining
>>>>>>>> pieces for Tomato Chromebooks, of course.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1]: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/list/?series=658527
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have two or three similar discussions, so maybe I lost the context,
>>>>>>> but I don't understand how your fix is matching real hardware.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the patchset here, Tinghan claimed that power domain controller is a
>>>>>>> child of 10006000. 10006000 is also a power domain controller. This was
>>>>>>> explicitly described by the DTS code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now you abandon this hierarchy in favor of syscon. If the hierarchy was
>>>>>>> correct, your patchset does not match the hardware, so it's a no-go.
>>>>>>> Describe the hardware.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However maybe this patch did not make any sense and there is no
>>>>>>> relationship parent-child... so what do you guys send here? Bunch of
>>>>>>> hacks and work-arounds?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For how I get it, hardware side, the SPM (System Power Manager) resides inside
>>>>>> of the SCPSYS block (consequently, in that iospace).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Matthias pointed out earlier, SCPSYS provides more functionality, but the
>>>>>> only one that's currently implemented upstream is the System Power Manager,
>>>>>> responsible for managing the MTCMOS (power domains).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any case, now I'm a little confused on how to proceed, can you please give
>>>>>> some suggestion?
>>>>>
>>>>> You should make SCPSYS (0x10006000, AFAIU) a proper driver with its own
>>>>> compatible (followed by syscon if needed), even if now it is almost
>>>>> empty stub. The driver should populate OF children and then you can
>>>>> embed SPM inside and reference to parent's regmap. No need for
>>>>> simple-mfd. Later the SCPSYS can grow, if you ever need it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see an issue with such approach: the SCPSYS doesn't have a mailbox, doesn't
>>>> need power management from the Linux side, doesn't have any register to check
>>>> HW revision, it's always online (hence it doesn't need Linux to boot it), it
>>>> doesn't need any root clock, nor regulator, nor mmu context, and there's no
>>>> retrievable "boot log" of any sort.
>>>
>>> No problems, there are other drivers who do not need any resources,
>>> except address space.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hence, a driver with its own compatible would be an empty stub forever: it's
>>>> not going to get any "scpsys root handling" at all, because there's none to do.
>>>
>>> But it is a power domain provider, so you need to embed it in some
>>> dirver, don't you?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Digging through some downstream kernels, the only other functionality that I
>>>> can find in the SCPSYS is a MODULE_RESET (which is used to reset the SCP System)
>>>> and a INFRA_IRQ_SET, used to set "wake locks" on the AP and CONNSYS (modem).
>>>
>>> So why was power domain provider added to SCPSYS? Guys, I don't know
>>> your architecture, so I deduct it based on pieces of DTS code I see.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Both of these may only be used in the SCP mailbox driver (which is *not* SCPSYS)
>>>> to perform an ipi_send operation (but currently we simply en/disable the clock
>>>> and that's enough), or to perform a reset and firmware reload of the SCP (but
>>>> currently we're simply powering off and back on: this may change in the future).
>>>>
>>>> So, at the end of the day, we would end up having a copy of simple-pm-bus and
>>>> nothing else, which doesn't look like being optimal at all.
>>>
>>> No, because you need that power domain driver, don't you? If you don't
>>> need power domain provider/driver, why the heck this is there:
>>>
>>> +		scpsys: syscon@10006000 {
>>> +			compatible = "syscon", "simple-mfd";
>>> +			reg = <0 0x10006000 0 0x1000>;
>>> +			#power-domain-cells = <1>;
>>>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> Entire discussion started from this.
>>>
>>
>> Is this all a huge misunderstanding? It probably is, at least partially.
>>
>> That node shouldn't have any #power-domain-cells, the only PD is the SPM node
>> (mediatek,mt8195-power-controller), not the scpsys parent! Ugh...
> 
> My comment was quite clear I think:
> 
>    > +			#power-domain-cells = <1>;
>    If it is simple MFD, then probably it is not a power domain provider.
>    Decide.

Yes it was quite clear. It's entirely my fault for misreading that part and
I'm truly sorry for that.

> 
> and you keep telling me that it is a power domain provider and MFD and
> something more.
> 
> Anyway neither syscon nor simple-mfd can be without specific compatible.
> 

I believe, at this point, that adding a compatible like "mediatek,scpsys" in
mfd/syscon.yaml should do?


> Best regards,
> Krzysztof