Re: [PATCH] Revert "reset: microchip-sparx5: allow building as a module"

[Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@microchip.com>]

Hi Michael,

I am afraid that the exact list of affected modules is not available, so using the
RESET_PROT_STAT.SYS_RST_PROT_VCORE bit is the best known way of resetting as much as possible, and
still continue execution.

This is what the Sparx5 datasheet has to say about the SYS_RST_PROT_VCORE protect bit:

The device can be soft-reset by writing SOFT_RST.SOFT_CHIP_RST. The VCore system and CPU can be
protected from a device soft-reset by writing RESET_PROT_STAT.SYS_RST_PROT_VCORE = 1 before
initiating soft-reset. 

In this case, a chip-level soft reset is applied to all other blocks except the VCore system and the
VCore CPU. When protecting the VCore system and CPU from a soft reset, the frame DMA must be
disabled prior to a chip-level soft reset. The SERDES and PLL blocks can be protected from reset by
writing to SOFT_RST.SOFT_SWC_RST instead of SOFT_CHIP_RST.

The VCore general purpose registers (CPU::GPR) and GPIO alternate modes (DEVCPU_GCB::GPIO_ALT) are
not affected by a soft-reset. These registers are only reset when an external reset is asserted.

BR
Steen

On Wed, 2022-07-13 at 11:03 +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> [+ Claudiu, Kavyasree ]
> Am 2022-07-13 10:40, schrieb Philipp Zabel:
> > This reverts commit b6b9585876da018bdde2d5f15d206a689c0d70f3.
> > 
> > This breaks MDIO on kswitch-d10, presumably because the global switch
> > reset is not released early enough anymore.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
> > Cc: Clément Léger <clement.leger@bootlin.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Tested-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
> 
> And maybe Microchip can chime in here and tell us what
> subsystems in the SoC will actually be reset by this.
> I fear this reset will affect almost every part of the
> SoC. So it would have to be bound to every single
> device? Or maybe adding that reset to the switch driver
> was a mistake in the first place?
> 
> I mean, if it wouldn't be for the guard bit, it would
> also reset the CPU core..
> 
> -michael