Re: [PATCH 07/20] dt-bindings: usb: xhci: Add Broadcom STB v2 compatible device
On 10/14/20 3:13 AM, Serge Semin wrote: > For some reason the "brcm,xhci-brcm-v2" compatible string has been missing > in the original bindings file. Add it to the Generic xHCI Controllers DT > schema since the controller driver expects it to be supported. > > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin Acked-by: Florian Fainelli -- Florian ___ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
Re: [PATCH 18/20] arch: dts: Fix EHCI/OHCI DT nodes name
On 10/14/20 3:14 AM, Serge Semin wrote: > In accordance with the Generic EHCI/OHCI bindings the corresponding node > name is suppose to comply with the Generic USB HCD DT schema, which > requires the USB nodes to have the name acceptable by the regexp: > "^usb(@.*)?" . Let's fix the DTS files, which have the nodes defined with > incompatible names. > > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin > > --- > > Please, test the patch out to make sure it doesn't brake the dependent DTS > files. I did only a manual grepping of the possible nodes dependencies. > --- > arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm5301x.dtsi| 4 ++-- > arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm53573.dtsi| 4 ++-- Acked-by: Florian Fainelli -- Florian ___ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
Re: [PATCH 20/20] arch: dts: Fix DWC USB3 DT nodes name
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 08:14:39AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 02:51:05AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > > > > > So to speak thanks for suggesting it. I'll try it to validate the > > > > proposed > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > Two questions: > > > > 1) Any advise of a good inliner/command to compile all dtbs at once? Of > > > > course I > > > > can get all the updated dtsi'es, then find out all the dts'es which > > > > include > > > > them, then directly use dtc to compile the found dts'es... On the other > > > > hand I > > > > can just compile all dts'es, then compare old and new ones. The diff of > > > > the > > > > non-modified dtb'es will be just empty... > > > > > > > > make dtbs > > > > It's not that easy.) "make dtbs" will build dtbs only for enabled boards, > > which > > first need to be enabled in the kernel config. So I'll need to have a config > > with all the affected dts. The later is the same as if I just found all the > > affected dts and built them one-by-one by directly calling dtc. > > True. Sometimes allyesconfig for given arch might be helpful but not > always (e.g. for ARM it does not select all of ARMv4 and ARMv5 boards). > Most likely your approach is actually faster/more reliable. > > > > > > touch your dts or git stash pop > > > make dtbs > > > compare > > > diff for all unchanged will be simply empty, so easy to spot > > > > > > > 2) What crosc64 is? > > > > > > Ah, just an alias for cross compiling + ccache + kbuild out. I just > > > copied you my helpers, so you need to tweak them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Split it per arm architectures (and proper subject prefix - not > > > > > "arch") and subarchitectures so maintainers can pick it up. > > > > > > > > Why? The changes are simple and can be formatted as a single patch. > > > > I've seen > > > > tons of patches submitted like that, accepted and then merged. What you > > > > suggest > > > > is just much more work, which I don't see quite required. > > > > > > > > DTS changes go separate between arm64 and arm. There is nothing > > > unusual here - all changes are submitted like this. > > > Second topic is to split by subarchitectures which is necessary if you > > > want it to be picked up by maintainers. It also makes it easier to > > > review. > > > > The current patches are easy enough for review. The last three patches of > > the > > series is a collection of the one-type changes concerning the same type of > > nodes. So reviewing them won't cause any difficulty. But I assume that's not > > the main point in this discussion. > > > > > Sure, without split ber subarchitectures this could be picked > > > up by SoC folks but you did not even CC them. So if you do not want to > > > split it per subarchitectures for maintainers and you do not CC SoC, > > > then how do you believe this should be picked up? Out of the regular > > > patch submission way? That's not how the changes are handled. > > > > AFAIU there are another ways of merging comprehensive patches. If they get > > to collect > > all the Acked-by tags, they could be merged in, for instance, through Greg' > > or Rob' > > (for dts) repos, if of course they get to agree with doing that. Am I wrong? > > > > My hope was to ask Rob or Greg to get the patches merged in when they get > > to collect all the ackes, since I thought it was an option in such cases. > > So if > > they refuse to do so I'll have no choice but to split the series up into a > > smaller patches as you say. > > This is neither Rob's nor Greg's patch to pick up, but ARM SoC (which was > not CCed here). And most likely they won't pick it up because judging by > contents it is obvious it should go via ARM SoC. > > Sure, if there are dependencies between some patches they can go with > acks through unrelated trees, but this not the usual way. This is an > exception in the process to solve particular dependency problem. It has > drawbacks - increases the chances of annoying conflicts. > > The case here does not fall into this criteria - there is no dependency > of this patch on the others Therefore there is no reason to use the > unusual/exceptional way of handling patches. There is no reason why > this shouldn't go via either specific ARM subarchitecture maintainers or > via ARM SoC. Ok. I see your point. To sum it up I've studied the git log arch/ commit messages and it turns out even Rob has to split the cleanup changes like this ones. So thanks for your patience with stating your point. I'll split the last three patches up to be merged in via the corresponding archs/subarch'es repos. -Sergey > > > > > > 3. The subject title could be more accurate - there is no fix here > > > > > because there was no errors in the first place. Requirement of DWC > > > > > node names comes recently, so it is more alignment with dtschema. > > > > > Otherwise automatic-pickup-stable-bot might want to pick up... and it > > > > > should not go to
Re: [PATCH 20/20] arch: dts: Fix DWC USB3 DT nodes name
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 01:15:37PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Serge Semin writes: > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 05:09:37PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >> > >> Hi Serge, > >> > >> Serge Semin writes: > >> > In accordance with the DWC USB3 bindings the corresponding node name is > >> > suppose to comply with Generic USB HCD DT schema, which requires the USB > >> > > > >> DWC3 is not a simple HDC, though. > > > > Yeah, strictly speaking it is equipped with a lot of vendor-specific stuff, > > which are tuned by the DWC USB3 driver in the kernel. But after that the > > controller is registered as xhci-hcd device so it's serviced by the xHCI > > driver, > > in Dual-role or host-only builds, that's correct. We can also have > peripheral-only builds (both SW or HW versions) which means xhci isn't > even in the picture. It doesn't really matter though, or at least it does for what the new name might be, but the old one currently used is still pretty bad. The DT spec says that the node name is the class of the device. "usb" as the HCD binding mandates is one, but the current nodes currently have completely different names from one DT to another - which is already an issue - and most of them have dwc3 or some variant of it, which doesn't really qualify for a class name. Maxime signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
Re: [PATCH 20/20] arch: dts: Fix DWC USB3 DT nodes name
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 01:15:37PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Serge Semin writes: > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 05:09:37PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >> > >> Hi Serge, > >> > >> Serge Semin writes: > >> > In accordance with the DWC USB3 bindings the corresponding node name is > >> > suppose to comply with Generic USB HCD DT schema, which requires the USB > >> > > > >> DWC3 is not a simple HDC, though. > > > > Yeah, strictly speaking it is equipped with a lot of vendor-specific stuff, > > which are tuned by the DWC USB3 driver in the kernel. But after that the > > controller is registered as xhci-hcd device so it's serviced by the xHCI > > driver, > > in Dual-role or host-only builds, that's correct. We can also have > peripheral-only builds (both SW or HW versions) which means xhci isn't > even in the picture. Hm, good point. In that case perhaps we'll need to apply the xHCI DT schema conditionally. Like this: - allOf: - - $ref: usb-xhci.yaml# + allOf: + - if: + properties: + dr_mode: + const: peripheral + then: + $ref: usb-hcd.yaml# + else: + $ref: usb-xhci.yaml# Note, we need to have the peripheral device being compatible with the usb-hcd.yaml schema to support the maximum-speed, dr_mode properties and to comply with the USB node naming constraint. -Sergey > > -- > balbi ___ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
Re: [PATCH 20/20] arch: dts: Fix DWC USB3 DT nodes name
Serge Semin writes: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 05:09:37PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> >> Hi Serge, >> >> Serge Semin writes: >> > In accordance with the DWC USB3 bindings the corresponding node name is >> > suppose to comply with Generic USB HCD DT schema, which requires the USB >> > >> DWC3 is not a simple HDC, though. > > Yeah, strictly speaking it is equipped with a lot of vendor-specific stuff, > which are tuned by the DWC USB3 driver in the kernel. But after that the > controller is registered as xhci-hcd device so it's serviced by the xHCI > driver, in Dual-role or host-only builds, that's correct. We can also have peripheral-only builds (both SW or HW versions) which means xhci isn't even in the picture. -- balbi signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
Re: [PATCH 18/20] arch: dts: Fix EHCI/OHCI DT nodes name
Hi Serge,
On 10/14/20 12:14 PM, Serge Semin wrote:
In accordance with the Generic EHCI/OHCI bindings the corresponding node
name is suppose to comply with the Generic USB HCD DT schema, which
requires the USB nodes to have the name acceptable by the regexp:
"^usb(@.*)?" . Let's fix the DTS files, which have the nodes defined with
incompatible names.
Signed-off-by: Serge Semin
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi
index bfe29023fbd5..576f7da564c5 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp151.dtsi
@@ -1404,7 +1404,7 @@ ethernet0: ethernet@5800a000 {
status = "disabled";
};
- usbh_ohci: usbh-ohci@5800c000 {
+ usbh_ohci: usb@5800c000 {
compatible = "generic-ohci";
reg = <0x5800c000 0x1000>;
clocks = < USBH>;
@@ -1413,7 +1413,7 @@ usbh_ohci: usbh-ohci@5800c000 {
status = "disabled";
};
- usbh_ehci: usbh-ehci@5800d000 {
+ usbh_ehci: usb@5800d000 {
compatible = "generic-ehci";
reg = <0x5800d000 0x1000>;
clocks = < USBH>;
For STM32MP151:
Acked-by: Amelie Delaunay
Thanks,
Amelie
___
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
Re: [PATCH 20/20] arch: dts: Fix DWC USB3 DT nodes name
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 02:51:05AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > > > So to speak thanks for suggesting it. I'll try it to validate the proposed > > > changes. > > > > > > Two questions: > > > 1) Any advise of a good inliner/command to compile all dtbs at once? Of > > > course I > > > can get all the updated dtsi'es, then find out all the dts'es which > > > include > > > them, then directly use dtc to compile the found dts'es... On the other > > > hand I > > > can just compile all dts'es, then compare old and new ones. The diff of > > > the > > > non-modified dtb'es will be just empty... > > > > > make dtbs > > It's not that easy.) "make dtbs" will build dtbs only for enabled boards, > which > first need to be enabled in the kernel config. So I'll need to have a config > with all the affected dts. The later is the same as if I just found all the > affected dts and built them one-by-one by directly calling dtc. True. Sometimes allyesconfig for given arch might be helpful but not always (e.g. for ARM it does not select all of ARMv4 and ARMv5 boards). Most likely your approach is actually faster/more reliable. > > > touch your dts or git stash pop > > make dtbs > > compare > > diff for all unchanged will be simply empty, so easy to spot > > > > > 2) What crosc64 is? > > > > Ah, just an alias for cross compiling + ccache + kbuild out. I just > > copied you my helpers, so you need to tweak them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Split it per arm architectures (and proper subject prefix - not > > > > "arch") and subarchitectures so maintainers can pick it up. > > > > > > Why? The changes are simple and can be formatted as a single patch. I've > > > seen > > > tons of patches submitted like that, accepted and then merged. What you > > > suggest > > > is just much more work, which I don't see quite required. > > > > > DTS changes go separate between arm64 and arm. There is nothing > > unusual here - all changes are submitted like this. > > Second topic is to split by subarchitectures which is necessary if you > > want it to be picked up by maintainers. It also makes it easier to > > review. > > The current patches are easy enough for review. The last three patches of the > series is a collection of the one-type changes concerning the same type of > nodes. So reviewing them won't cause any difficulty. But I assume that's not > the main point in this discussion. > > > Sure, without split ber subarchitectures this could be picked > > up by SoC folks but you did not even CC them. So if you do not want to > > split it per subarchitectures for maintainers and you do not CC SoC, > > then how do you believe this should be picked up? Out of the regular > > patch submission way? That's not how the changes are handled. > > AFAIU there are another ways of merging comprehensive patches. If they get to > collect > all the Acked-by tags, they could be merged in, for instance, through Greg' > or Rob' > (for dts) repos, if of course they get to agree with doing that. Am I wrong? > > My hope was to ask Rob or Greg to get the patches merged in when they get > to collect all the ackes, since I thought it was an option in such cases. So > if > they refuse to do so I'll have no choice but to split the series up into a > smaller patches as you say. This is neither Rob's nor Greg's patch to pick up, but ARM SoC (which was not CCed here). And most likely they won't pick it up because judging by contents it is obvious it should go via ARM SoC. Sure, if there are dependencies between some patches they can go with acks through unrelated trees, but this not the usual way. This is an exception in the process to solve particular dependency problem. It has drawbacks - increases the chances of annoying conflicts. The case here does not fall into this criteria - there is no dependency of this patch on the others Therefore there is no reason to use the unusual/exceptional way of handling patches. There is no reason why this shouldn't go via either specific ARM subarchitecture maintainers or via ARM SoC. > > > > 3. The subject title could be more accurate - there is no fix here > > > > because there was no errors in the first place. Requirement of DWC > > > > node names comes recently, so it is more alignment with dtschema. > > > > Otherwise automatic-pickup-stable-bot might want to pick up... and it > > > > should not go to stable. > > > > > > Actually it is a fix, because the USB DT nodes should have been named > > > with "usb" > > > prefix in the first place. Legacy DWC USB3 bindings didn't define the > > > nodes > > > naming, but implied to be "usb"-prefixed by the USB HCD schema. The > > > Qualcomm > > > DWC3 schema should have defined the sub-nodes as "dwc3@"-prefixed, which > > > was > > > wrong in the first place. > > > > > Not following the naming convention of DT spec which was loosely > > enforced is not an error which should be "fixed". Simply wrong title. > > This is an alignment with dtschema or
