Re: [PATCH v5 04/13] dt-bindings: memory-controllers: add canaan k210 sram controller

2022-08-16 Thread Krzysztof Kozlowski
On 06/07/2022 00:52, Conor Dooley wrote:
> From: Conor Dooley 
> 
> The k210 U-Boot port has been using the clocks defined in the
> devicetree to bring up the board's SRAM, but this violates the
> dt-schema. As such, move the clocks to a dedicated node with
> the same compatible string & document it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley 
> ---

Does not apply to my tree. Please rebase and resend.

Best regards,
Krzysztof


Re: [PATCH v5 04/13] dt-bindings: memory-controllers: add canaan k210 sram controller

2022-07-12 Thread Krzysztof Kozlowski
On 12/07/2022 17:54, conor.doo...@microchip.com wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 00:21, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 7/11/22 04:39, conor.doo...@microchip.com wrote:
>>> Damien, Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> I know this particular version has not been posted for all that
>>> long, but this binding is (functionally) unchanged for a few
>>> versions now. Are you happy with this approach Damien?
>>> U-Boot only cares about the compatible & the clocks property,
>>> not the regs etc.
>>>
>>> I (lazily) tested it in U-Boot with the following diff:
>>
>> If both the kernel and u-boot still work as expected with this change, I
>> am OK with it.
> 
> It's all yours so Krzysztof :)

It's too late in the cycle for me to pick it up. If you have alternate
tree to take it through, go ahead with:

Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski 

Otherwise, I'll take it after the merge window of v5.20, so in ~1 month
according to crystal ball.

Best regards,
Krzysztof


Re: [PATCH v5 04/13] dt-bindings: memory-controllers: add canaan k210 sram controller

2022-07-10 Thread Damien Le Moal
On 7/11/22 04:39, conor.doo...@microchip.com wrote:
> Damien, Krzysztof,
> 
> I know this particular version has not been posted for all that
> long, but this binding is (functionally) unchanged for a few
> versions now. Are you happy with this approach Damien?
> U-Boot only cares about the compatible & the clocks property,
> not the regs etc.
> 
> I (lazily) tested it in U-Boot with the following diff:

If both the kernel and u-boot still work as expected with this change, I
am OK with it.

> 
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/dts/k210.dtsi b/arch/riscv/dts/k210.dtsi
> index 3cc8379133..314db88340 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/dts/k210.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/riscv/dts/k210.dtsi
> @@ -82,11 +82,14 @@
>  
> sram: memory@8000 {
> device_type = "memory";
> +   reg = <0x8000 0x40>, /* sram0 4 MiB */
> + <0x8040 0x20>, /* sram1 2 MiB */
> + <0x8060 0x20>; /* aisram 2 MiB */
> +   u-boot,dm-pre-reloc;
> +   };
> +
> +   sram_controller: memory-controller {
> compatible = "canaan,k210-sram";
> -   reg = <0x8000 0x40>,
> - <0x8040 0x20>,
> - <0x8060 0x20>;
> -   reg-names = "sram0", "sram1", "aisram";
> clocks = < K210_CLK_SRAM0>,
>  < K210_CLK_SRAM1>,
>  < K210_CLK_AI>;
> 
> If so, could you queue this for 5.20 please Krzysztof, unless
> you've got concerns about it?
> 
> Thanks,
> Conor.
> 
> On 05/07/2022 22:52, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 
>> content is safe
>>
>> From: Conor Dooley 
>>
>> The k210 U-Boot port has been using the clocks defined in the
>> devicetree to bring up the board's SRAM, but this violates the
>> dt-schema. As such, move the clocks to a dedicated node with
>> the same compatible string & document it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley 
>> ---
>>  .../memory-controllers/canaan,k210-sram.yaml  | 52 +++
>>  1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/canaan,k210-sram.yaml
>>
>> diff --git 
>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/canaan,k210-sram.yaml 
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/canaan,k210-sram.yaml
>> new file mode 100644
>> index ..f81fb866e319
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ 
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/canaan,k210-sram.yaml
>> @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>> +%YAML 1.2
>> +---
>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/memory-controllers/canaan,k210-sram.yaml#
>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>> +
>> +title: Canaan K210 SRAM memory controller
>> +
>> +description:
>> +  The Canaan K210 SRAM memory controller is responsible for the system's 8 
>> MiB
>> +  of SRAM. The controller is initialised by the bootloader, which configures
>> +  its clocks, before OS bringup.
>> +
>> +maintainers:
>> +  - Conor Dooley 
>> +
>> +properties:
>> +  compatible:
>> +enum:
>> +  - canaan,k210-sram
>> +
>> +  clocks:
>> +minItems: 1
>> +items:
>> +  - description: sram0 clock
>> +  - description: sram1 clock
>> +  - description: aisram clock
>> +
>> +  clock-names:
>> +minItems: 1
>> +items:
>> +  - const: sram0
>> +  - const: sram1
>> +  - const: aisram
>> +
>> +required:
>> +  - compatible
>> +  - clocks
>> +  - clock-names
>> +
>> +additionalProperties: false
>> +
>> +examples:
>> +  - |
>> +#include 
>> +memory-controller {
>> +compatible = "canaan,k210-sram";
>> +clocks = < K210_CLK_SRAM0>,
>> + < K210_CLK_SRAM1>,
>> + < K210_CLK_AI>;
>> +clock-names = "sram0", "sram1", "aisram";
>> +};
>> --
>> 2.37.0
>>
> 


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research


Re: [PATCH v5 04/13] dt-bindings: memory-controllers: add canaan k210 sram controller

2022-07-06 Thread Rob Herring
On Tue, 05 Jul 2022 22:52:05 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> From: Conor Dooley 
> 
> The k210 U-Boot port has been using the clocks defined in the
> devicetree to bring up the board's SRAM, but this violates the
> dt-schema. As such, move the clocks to a dedicated node with
> the same compatible string & document it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley 
> ---
>  .../memory-controllers/canaan,k210-sram.yaml  | 52 +++
>  1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/canaan,k210-sram.yaml
> 

Reviewed-by: Rob Herring