+Arnd, Olof Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com> writes:
> Hi Bartosz, > > On Wednesday 19 Oct 2016 10:26:57 Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> 2016-10-18 22:49 GMT+02:00 Laurent Pinchart: >> > On Monday 17 Oct 2016 18:30:49 Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> >> Create the driver for the da8xx System Configuration and implement >> >> support for writing to the three Master Priority registers. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszew...@baylibre.com> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> + >> >> +Documentation: >> >> +OMAP-L138 (DA850) - http://www.ti.com/lit/ug/spruh82c/spruh82c.pdf >> >> + >> >> +Required properties: >> >> + >> >> +- compatible: "ti,da850-syscfg" >> > >> > Don't you need a reg property ? >> >> Yes, Kevin already pointed that out. I'll add it in v2. Same for [1/3]. >> >> >> +Optional properties: >> >> + >> >> +The below properties are used to specify the priority of master >> >> peripherals. >> >> +They must be between 0-7 where 0 is the highest priority and 7 is the >> >> lowest. >> >> + >> >> +- ti,pri-arm-i: ARM_I port priority. >> >> + >> >> +- ti,pri-arm-d: ARM_D port priority. >> >> + >> >> +- ti,pri-upp: uPP port priority. >> >> + >> >> +- ti,pri-sata: SATA port priority. >> >> + >> >> +- ti,pri-pru0: PRU0 port priority. >> >> + >> >> +- ti,pri-pru1: PRU1 port priority. >> >> + >> >> +- ti,pri-edma30tc0: EDMA3_0_TC0 port priority. >> >> + >> >> +- ti,pri-edma30tc1: EDMA3_0_TC1 port priority. >> >> + >> >> +- ti,pri-edma31tc0: EDMA3_1_TC0 port priority. >> >> + >> >> +- ti,pri-vpif-dma-0: VPIF DMA0 port priority. >> >> + >> >> +- ti,pri-vpif-dma-1: VPIF DMA1 port priority. >> >> + >> >> +- ti,pri-emac: EMAC port priority. >> >> + >> >> +- ti,pri-usb0cfg: USB0 CFG port priority. >> >> + >> >> +- ti,pri-usb0cdma: USB0 CDMA port priority. >> >> + >> >> +- ti,pri-uhpi: HPI port priority. >> >> + >> >> +- ti,pri-usb1: USB1 port priority. >> >> + >> >> +- ti,pri-lcdc: LCDC port priority. >> > >> > I'm afraid this looks more like system configuration than hardware >> > description to me. >> >> While you're certainly right, this approach is already implemented in >> several other memory and bus drivers and it was also suggested by >> Sekhar in one of the tilcdc rev1 threads. There's also no real >> alternative that I know of. > > The fact that other drivers get it wrong is no excuse for copying them :-) What exactly is "wrong" with the way other drivers are doing it? I'm sure there may be other ideas, and possibly some better ones, but that doesn't make it wrong, and doesn't change he fact that the kernel has existing drivers SoC-bus-specific system performance knobs like this. >> > There was a BoF session about how to support this kind of performance >> > knobs at ELCE last week: >> > https://openiotelceurope2016.sched.org/event/7rss/bof-linux-device-perfor >> > mance-framework-michael-turquette-baylibre :-) >> >> Unfortunately it was just a discussion about potential approaches - >> there's no code yet. > > Patches are welcome ;-) Any generic perf framework will have to build on the HW-specifics of individual busses, so IMO, the lack of a generic performance framework/knobs should not be a reason to block the inclusion of any bus-specific knobs. I guess this ultimately would go though arm-soc, so I've added Arnd & Olof to the thread. Kevin
