Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: reset: Add binding for Sophgo CV1800B reset controller

[Jisheng Zhang]

On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 03:02:21PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 09:56:07AM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote:
> > On 2023-11-15 7:27 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 10:12:35PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > >> On 13/11/2023 01:55, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > >> ...
> > >>
> > >>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/reset/sophgo,cv1800b-reset.h b/include/dt-bindings/reset/sophgo,cv1800b-reset.h
> > >>> new file mode 100644
> > >>> index 000000000000..28dda71369b4
> > >>> --- /dev/null
> > >>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/reset/sophgo,cv1800b-reset.h
> > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
> > >>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT */
> > >>> +/*
> > >>> + * Copyright (C) 2023 Sophgo Technology Inc. All rights reserved.
> > >>> + * Copyright (C) 2023 Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> + */
> > >>> +
> > >>> +#ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_CV1800B_RESET_H
> > >>> +#define _DT_BINDINGS_CV1800B_RESET_H
> > >>> +
> > >>> +/*				0-1	*/
> > >>> +#define RST_DDR			2
> > >>> +#define RST_H264C		3
> > >>> +#define RST_JPEG		4
> > >>> +#define RST_H265C		5
> > >>> +#define RST_VIPSYS		6
> > >>> +#define RST_TDMA		7
> > >>> +#define RST_TPU			8
> > >>> +#define RST_TPUSYS		9
> > >>> +/*				10	*/
> > >>
> > >> Why do you have empty IDs? IDs start at 0 and are incremented by 1.
> > > 
> > > there's 1:1 mapping between the ID and bit. Some bits are reserved, I.E
> > > no actions at all. Is "ID start at 0 and increment by 1" documented
> > > in some docs? From another side, I also notice some SoCs especially
> > > those which make use of reset-simple driver don't strictly follow
> > > this rule, for example, amlogic,meson-a1-reset.h and so on. What
> > > happened?
> > > 
> > > And I'd like to ask a question here before cooking 2nd version:
> > > if the HW programming logic is the same as reset-simple, but some
> > > or many bits are reserved, what's the can-be-accepted way to support
> > > the reset controller? Use reset-simple? Obviously if we want the
> > > "ID start at 0 and increment by 1" rule, then we have to write
> > > a custom driver which almost use the reset-simple but with a
> > > customized mapping.
> > 
> > There are two possible situations. Either the reset specifier maps directly to
> > something in the hardware, or you are inventing some brand new enumeration to
> > use as a specifier.
> > 
> > In the first situation, you do not need a header. We assume the user will look
> > to the SoC documentation if they want to know what the numbers mean. (You aren't
> > _creating_ an ABI, since the ABI is already defined by the hardware.)
> > 
> > In the second situation, since we are inventing something new, the numbers
> > should be contiguous. This is what Krzysztof's comment was about.
> > 
> > For this reset device, the numbers are hardware bit offsets, so you are in the
> > first situation. So I think the recommended solution here is to remove the
> > header entirely and use the bit numbers directly in the SoC devicetree.
> > 
> > It's still appropriate to use reset-simple. Adding some new mapping would make
> > things more complicated for no benefit.
> 
> Further, I think it is fine in that case to have a header, just the
> header doesn't belong as a binding, and can instead go in the dts
> directory.

Hi Samuel, Conor,

thanks a lot for the suggestion!

Regards