[PATCH v4 1/4] dt-bindings: mfd: Add bindings for Ampere Altra SMPro drivers

Quan Nguyen quan at os.amperecomputing.com
Tue May 18 09:36:13 AEST 2021

On 05/05/2021 15:44, Quan Nguyen wrote:
> On 01/05/2021 03:19, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 04:08:40PM +0700, Quan Nguyen wrote:
>>> Adds device tree bindings for SMPro driver found on the Mt.Jade hardware
>>> reference platform with Ampere's Altra Processor family.
>>> The SMpro co-processor on Ampere Altra processor family is to monitor
>>> and report various data included hwmon-related info, RAS errors, and
>>> other miscellaneous information. This parent SMPro MFD driver creates
>>> a single simple register map to be shared by all sub-devices and leave
>>> all the specific to be handled by the child drivers.
>> Again, just because you have multiple functions aka MFD, that doesn't
>> mean you need child nodes for each function. The only thing you have
>> in DT is a register address. Does this vary? If so, how often? How many
>> different versions of a DT do you currently or expect to have?
> Hi Rob,
> Thank you for your review.
> I will try to explain what I think below and expect to receive more 
> comments to improve these patches. And if any misundertood, please help 
> correct me.
> The idea is to keep the SMPro MFD as a simple generic register map and 
> expect not to change or to handle any specific in this parent device 
> driver. This is why we see the simple_mfd_i2c fit in this case.
> And so, all the specific details will be handled in child devices driver 
> and we expect to have child nodes for these child devices. If the child 
> node exist we can then add any specific if necessary later.
> One case is that, each socket (ie: the Ampere Altra processor) has it 
> own SMPro co-processor instance in form of register map and each socket 
> could be either slave or master. Some function may not available in 
> slave socket but exist in master socket and we simply choose not to 
> define the child node if that function not existed.
> The other case is that if there are multi instances of the same function 
> in one SMPro MFD register map, then each instance might need to be 
> differentiated by using is own register address or maybe a DT property. 
> Then we can simply add them to the node of these instance.
> For your specific questions:
> + Does this vary ?
> yes, I think so. The register address in each child nodes may vary if 
> the SMPro co-processor firmware change its register map layout or maybe 
> other instances of a function added. Child device drivers are expected 
> to handle these changes if necessary.
> + About how often ?
> I actually can't say how often but the purpose of this SMPro register 
> map is to provide the info to the BMC. The BMC will need more info from 
> the host so I think changes will be unavoidable.
> Please help with your comments
> Thank you,
> - Quan
Dear Rob,

do you have any suggestion to improve this patch?

- Quan

More information about the openbmc mailing list