[PATCH] powerpc: Add FSL CPM2 device tree node documentation

Vitaly Bordug vbordug at ru.mvista.com
Fri Mar 31 02:02:22 EST 2006

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:14:18 -0500
Dan Malek <dan at embeddedalley.com> wrote:

> On Mar 30, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > * What a give channel (SCC, FCC, UCC, SMC?) is used for serial,
> > ethernet, ATM, etc.
> You need to view this from the other direction.  As I've always
> said, we don't have an "SCC driver", we have a uart driver for
> SCCs.  So, you configure from that perspective.  The uart driver
> is configured to use certain SCCs.
Well, I am going to move the board-specific code to the BSP place, and make the driver use the callback when it needs to configure the HW tp use SCC/SMC (that includes pin setup as well - the way it is in fs_enet). Actually, it can use any (or even all the SXCs) simultaneously, and that strict configuration can be obsoleted (I mean - nothing required in .config to mention which soc device has the uart, as gianfar does not require what TSEC to utilize) - people often misconfigure things, and to be right there should be ifdef hell in the driver which is _odd_.

> > * How a channel is wired? [pin muxing]  (I really hate having drivers
> > have board specific ifdefs for this)
> I've got a solution for IO pin multiplexing that I have to get pushed
> in using the "feature_call" method like a pmac.  The other thing
> to realize here is there is often hardware beyond just "pin muxing"
> that is unique to a board and requires configuration.  Statically
> describing what pins set/clear is a small, and already understood
> part, of more complex set up that needs to be done with code
> unique to a board.

well, ... :D
> > * which (if any) BRG a channel is using?
> These are already a dynamically allocated resource.  Drivers
> don't care which one is assigned, you should be allocating
> one and using the handle provided to the support functions.

Nobody is arguing. But we need offsets to deal with BRGs (at least repeat that behavior in powerpc), CMX, CP - and there are 2 options to have them  -  yet another foo_immap.h or that "static" nodes in the flattened device tree. 

We already have mature implementation of the first approach - and I just want to give the second one a try and to see if it will be more flexible/effective that what we have in ppc right now. 

> > * ...? [I feel like I'm missing some but haven't worked on a CPM
> > driver in a while :)]
> I can't think of any, and I use the CPM all of the time.  :-)
That is great :)
> > The other question is what changes between CPUs?
> Almost nothing, except the PRAM offset you mention below
> and I've mentioned in past messages as memory bank differences.
> > * Number/Mix of channels
> > * some PRAM offset (8272 FCC comes to mind)
> > * channel differences for same channel type? (what's an example of
> > this?)
> > * ...?
> Don't be creating problems to solve because we seem to have
> a solution for _something_.  Yes, this would be a cute piece of code
> to write and interesting driver updates, but in the end all we have
> is change for the sake of change, without adding any new features.

Let me disagree. Each big change is "a change for change, for design" usually at start. Or, why don't we still use 2.4 - I'm pretty sure there was some period of "redesign" when the new architecture tries to re-implement features yet-existing in mature-stable branch... Or am I missing something?

> The thing to remember is the few public Linux drivers we have
> take little advantage of the CPM features.  We just configure a few
> fixed standard modes (like serial and Ethernet).  The CPM is far
> more powerful and flexible than this, so it seems silly to create some
> complex method of describing our trivial fixed modes that has no
> hope of actually being useful for "real" CPM usage.  Then, when
> someone does write a more complex driver, we have all of this
> "framework" that just gets in the way instead of being useful.
Currently we'll be stale on that small fixed functionality with the implementation we have in ppc. Yes, feature_call could help, but will not save the world, so drivers will have that ifdeffed code inside, direct immr dereference, etc.  Well, it's really hard to make use of CPM flexibility the way it is now.  I don't believe that devicetree approach will save the world either, but it is promising enough at least to try that way.


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list