| Message ID | 3100bbc4723643ec1ec7d4548e9ab353c856b564.1704470663.git.michal.simek@amd.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] dt-bindings: fpga: Convert bridge binding to yaml | expand |
On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 05:04:30PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > Convert the generic fpga bridge DT binding to json-schema. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com> Thanks > --- > > .../devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.txt | 13 -------- > .../devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml | 30 +++++++++++++++++++ > .../bindings/fpga/xlnx,pr-decoupler.yaml | 5 +++- > 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.txt > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.txt > deleted file mode 100644 > index 72e06917288a..000000000000 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.txt > +++ /dev/null > @@ -1,13 +0,0 @@ > -FPGA Bridge Device Tree Binding > - > -Optional properties: > -- bridge-enable : 0 if driver should disable bridge at startup > - 1 if driver should enable bridge at startup > - Default is to leave bridge in current state. > - > -Example: > - fpga_bridge3: fpga-bridge@ffc25080 { > - compatible = "altr,socfpga-fpga2sdram-bridge"; > - reg = <0xffc25080 0x4>; > - bridge-enable = <0>; > - }; > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..248639c6b560 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: FPGA Bridge > + > +maintainers: > + - Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> > + > +properties: > + $nodename: > + pattern: "^fpga-bridge(@.*)?$" > + > + bridge-enable: > + description: | > + 0 if driver should disable bridge at startup > + 1 if driver should enable bridge at startup > + Default is to leave bridge in current state. > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 > + enum: [ 0, 1 ] > + > +additionalProperties: true > + > +examples: > + - | > + fpga-bridge { > + bridge-enable = <0>; > + }; > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/xlnx,pr-decoupler.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/xlnx,pr-decoupler.yaml > index a7d4b8e59e19..5bf731f9d99a 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/xlnx,pr-decoupler.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/xlnx,pr-decoupler.yaml > @@ -9,6 +9,9 @@ title: Xilinx LogiCORE Partial Reconfig Decoupler/AXI shutdown manager Softcore > maintainers: > - Nava kishore Manne <nava.kishore.manne@amd.com> > > +allOf: > + - $ref: fpga-bridge.yaml# > + > description: | > The Xilinx LogiCORE Partial Reconfig(PR) Decoupler manages one or more > decouplers/fpga bridges. The controller can decouple/disable the bridges > @@ -51,7 +54,7 @@ required: > - clocks > - clock-names > > -additionalProperties: false > +unevaluatedProperties: false > > examples: > - | > -- > 2.36.1 > >
On 05/01/2024 17:04, Michal Simek wrote: > Convert the generic fpga bridge DT binding to json-schema. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: FPGA Bridge > + > +maintainers: > + - Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> > + > +properties: > + $nodename: > + pattern: "^fpga-bridge(@.*)?$" Not sure, but maybe we need to allow fpga-bridge-1? Could we have more than one bridge on given system? Anyway, looks fine: Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> Best regards, Krzysztof
On 1/8/24 10:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 05/01/2024 17:04, Michal Simek wrote: >> Convert the generic fpga bridge DT binding to json-schema. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> > >> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml# >> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >> + >> +title: FPGA Bridge >> + >> +maintainers: >> + - Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> >> + >> +properties: >> + $nodename: >> + pattern: "^fpga-bridge(@.*)?$" > > Not sure, but maybe we need to allow fpga-bridge-1? Could we have more > than one bridge on given system? Yilun: Any comment on this? > > Anyway, looks fine: > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> Thanks, Michal
On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 10:16:17AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > > > On 1/8/24 10:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 05/01/2024 17:04, Michal Simek wrote: > > > Convert the generic fpga bridge DT binding to json-schema. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> > > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml# > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > + > > > +title: FPGA Bridge > > > + > > > +maintainers: > > > + - Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> > > > + > > > +properties: > > > + $nodename: > > > + pattern: "^fpga-bridge(@.*)?$" > > > > Not sure, but maybe we need to allow fpga-bridge-1? Could we have more > > than one bridge on given system? > > Yilun: Any comment on this? We can have more bridges, but IIUC people use fpga-bridge@0, fpga-bridge@0 to identify them. So the expression is OK to me. Thanks, Yilun > > > > > Anyway, looks fine: > > > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > > Thanks, > Michal >
On 09/01/2024 04:53, Xu Yilun wrote: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 10:16:17AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >> >> >> On 1/8/24 10:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 05/01/2024 17:04, Michal Simek wrote: >>>> Convert the generic fpga bridge DT binding to json-schema. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> >>> >>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml# >>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>>> + >>>> +title: FPGA Bridge >>>> + >>>> +maintainers: >>>> + - Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> >>>> + >>>> +properties: >>>> + $nodename: >>>> + pattern: "^fpga-bridge(@.*)?$" >>> >>> Not sure, but maybe we need to allow fpga-bridge-1? Could we have more >>> than one bridge on given system? >> >> Yilun: Any comment on this? > > We can have more bridges, but IIUC people use fpga-bridge@0, fpga-bridge@0 > to identify them. So the expression is OK to me. So you claim unit address thus reg with some sort of bus address is a requirement? Then "?" is not correct in that pattern. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 1/9/24 09:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 09/01/2024 04:53, Xu Yilun wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 10:16:17AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 1/8/24 10:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 05/01/2024 17:04, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>> Convert the generic fpga bridge DT binding to json-schema. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> >>>> >>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml# >>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>>>> + >>>>> +title: FPGA Bridge >>>>> + >>>>> +maintainers: >>>>> + - Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> >>>>> + >>>>> +properties: >>>>> + $nodename: >>>>> + pattern: "^fpga-bridge(@.*)?$" >>>> >>>> Not sure, but maybe we need to allow fpga-bridge-1? Could we have more >>>> than one bridge on given system? >>> >>> Yilun: Any comment on this? >> >> We can have more bridges, but IIUC people use fpga-bridge@0, fpga-bridge@0 >> to identify them. So the expression is OK to me. > > So you claim unit address thus reg with some sort of bus address is a > requirement? Then "?" is not correct in that pattern. I expect it is about that people are using fpga-bridge@0 but bridge is not on the bus. Yilun said that reg property in altr,socfpga-fpga2sdram-bridge.yaml is optional which means no reg property no @XXX in node name. That's why I think that expression is correct. If there are more bridges without reg property then I expect we need to get more examples to align expression. Thanks, Michal
On 09/01/2024 09:06, Michal Simek wrote: > > > On 1/9/24 09:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 09/01/2024 04:53, Xu Yilun wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 10:16:17AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/8/24 10:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 05/01/2024 17:04, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>>> Convert the generic fpga bridge DT binding to json-schema. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> >>>>> >>>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml# >>>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>>>>> + >>>>>> +title: FPGA Bridge >>>>>> + >>>>>> +maintainers: >>>>>> + - Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> >>>>>> + >>>>>> +properties: >>>>>> + $nodename: >>>>>> + pattern: "^fpga-bridge(@.*)?$" >>>>> >>>>> Not sure, but maybe we need to allow fpga-bridge-1? Could we have more >>>>> than one bridge on given system? >>>> >>>> Yilun: Any comment on this? >>> >>> We can have more bridges, but IIUC people use fpga-bridge@0, fpga-bridge@0 >>> to identify them. So the expression is OK to me. >> >> So you claim unit address thus reg with some sort of bus address is a >> requirement? Then "?" is not correct in that pattern. > > I expect it is about that people are using fpga-bridge@0 but bridge is not on > the bus. Yilun said that reg property in altr,socfpga-fpga2sdram-bridge.yaml is > optional which means no reg property no @XXX in node name. > That's why I think that expression is correct. If there are more bridges without > reg property then I expect we need to get more examples to align expression. If we allow node name without unit address, thus not being part of any bus, then the only question is whether it is possible to have system with more than two FPGA bridges. If the answer is "yes", which I think is the case, then the pattern should already allow it: (@[0-9a-f]+|-[0-9]+)? Best regards, Krzysztof
On 09/01/2024 09:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>>> +properties: >>>>>>> + $nodename: >>>>>>> + pattern: "^fpga-bridge(@.*)?$" >>>>>> >>>>>> Not sure, but maybe we need to allow fpga-bridge-1? Could we have more >>>>>> than one bridge on given system? >>>>> >>>>> Yilun: Any comment on this? >>>> >>>> We can have more bridges, but IIUC people use fpga-bridge@0, fpga-bridge@0 >>>> to identify them. So the expression is OK to me. >>> >>> So you claim unit address thus reg with some sort of bus address is a >>> requirement? Then "?" is not correct in that pattern. >> >> I expect it is about that people are using fpga-bridge@0 but bridge is not on >> the bus. Yilun said that reg property in altr,socfpga-fpga2sdram-bridge.yaml is >> optional which means no reg property no @XXX in node name. >> That's why I think that expression is correct. If there are more bridges without >> reg property then I expect we need to get more examples to align expression. > > If we allow node name without unit address, thus not being part of any > bus, then the only question is whether it is possible to have system > with more than two FPGA bridges. If the answer is "yes", which I think > is the case, then the pattern should already allow it: > > (@[0-9a-f]+|-[0-9]+)? Or better go with what I used recently for narrowed choices: (@.*|-([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]+))? Best regards, Krzysztof
On 1/9/24 09:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 09/01/2024 09:06, Michal Simek wrote: >> >> >> On 1/9/24 09:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 09/01/2024 04:53, Xu Yilun wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 10:16:17AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 1/8/24 10:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> On 05/01/2024 17:04, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>>>> Convert the generic fpga bridge DT binding to json-schema. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> >>>>>> >>>>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml# >>>>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +title: FPGA Bridge >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +maintainers: >>>>>>> + - Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +properties: >>>>>>> + $nodename: >>>>>>> + pattern: "^fpga-bridge(@.*)?$" >>>>>> >>>>>> Not sure, but maybe we need to allow fpga-bridge-1? Could we have more >>>>>> than one bridge on given system? >>>>> >>>>> Yilun: Any comment on this? >>>> >>>> We can have more bridges, but IIUC people use fpga-bridge@0, fpga-bridge@0 >>>> to identify them. So the expression is OK to me. >>> >>> So you claim unit address thus reg with some sort of bus address is a >>> requirement? Then "?" is not correct in that pattern. >> >> I expect it is about that people are using fpga-bridge@0 but bridge is not on >> the bus. Yilun said that reg property in altr,socfpga-fpga2sdram-bridge.yaml is >> optional which means no reg property no @XXX in node name. >> That's why I think that expression is correct. If there are more bridges without >> reg property then I expect we need to get more examples to align expression. > > If we allow node name without unit address, thus not being part of any > bus, then the only question is whether it is possible to have system > with more than two FPGA bridges. If the answer is "yes", which I think > is the case, then the pattern should already allow it: > > (@[0-9a-f]+|-[0-9]+)? Let's see what Yilun says. I am happy to align it. IIRC in our case bridge doesn't need to have reg interface because it can be handled via gpio. You can have multiple of them but doesn't make sense to allocate multiple gpios to handle it because they can connected in a chain that one gpio drives all of them (And I don't think we have ever been requested to write a driver for it). Thanks, Michal
On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 09:16:33AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 09/01/2024 09:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>>>>> +properties: > >>>>>>> + $nodename: > >>>>>>> + pattern: "^fpga-bridge(@.*)?$" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Not sure, but maybe we need to allow fpga-bridge-1? Could we have more > >>>>>> than one bridge on given system? > >>>>> > >>>>> Yilun: Any comment on this? > >>>> > >>>> We can have more bridges, but IIUC people use fpga-bridge@0, fpga-bridge@0 > >>>> to identify them. So the expression is OK to me. > >>> > >>> So you claim unit address thus reg with some sort of bus address is a > >>> requirement? Then "?" is not correct in that pattern. > >> > >> I expect it is about that people are using fpga-bridge@0 but bridge is not on > >> the bus. Yilun said that reg property in altr,socfpga-fpga2sdram-bridge.yaml is > >> optional which means no reg property no @XXX in node name. > >> That's why I think that expression is correct. If there are more bridges without > >> reg property then I expect we need to get more examples to align expression. > > > > If we allow node name without unit address, thus not being part of any This is valid usecase. > > bus, then the only question is whether it is possible to have system > > with more than two FPGA bridges. If the answer is "yes", which I think The answer is yes. > > is the case, then the pattern should already allow it: > > > > (@[0-9a-f]+|-[0-9]+)? > > Or better go with what I used recently for narrowed choices: > > (@.*|-([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]+))? It is good to me. I actually didn't know much about DTS & its Schema, thanks for all your input. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > >
On 1/9/24 11:22, Xu Yilun wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 09:16:33AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 09/01/2024 09:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>>>>> +properties: >>>>>>>>> + $nodename: >>>>>>>>> + pattern: "^fpga-bridge(@.*)?$" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not sure, but maybe we need to allow fpga-bridge-1? Could we have more >>>>>>>> than one bridge on given system? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yilun: Any comment on this? >>>>>> >>>>>> We can have more bridges, but IIUC people use fpga-bridge@0, fpga-bridge@0 >>>>>> to identify them. So the expression is OK to me. >>>>> >>>>> So you claim unit address thus reg with some sort of bus address is a >>>>> requirement? Then "?" is not correct in that pattern. >>>> >>>> I expect it is about that people are using fpga-bridge@0 but bridge is not on >>>> the bus. Yilun said that reg property in altr,socfpga-fpga2sdram-bridge.yaml is >>>> optional which means no reg property no @XXX in node name. >>>> That's why I think that expression is correct. If there are more bridges without >>>> reg property then I expect we need to get more examples to align expression. >>> >>> If we allow node name without unit address, thus not being part of any > > This is valid usecase. > >>> bus, then the only question is whether it is possible to have system >>> with more than two FPGA bridges. If the answer is "yes", which I think > > The answer is yes. > >>> is the case, then the pattern should already allow it: >>> >>> (@[0-9a-f]+|-[0-9]+)? >> >> Or better go with what I used recently for narrowed choices: >> >> (@.*|-([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]+))? > > It is good to me. > > I actually didn't know much about DTS & its Schema, thanks for all your > input. Ok. Will send v3 with it. Thanks, Michal
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 72e06917288a..000000000000 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,13 +0,0 @@ -FPGA Bridge Device Tree Binding - -Optional properties: -- bridge-enable : 0 if driver should disable bridge at startup - 1 if driver should enable bridge at startup - Default is to leave bridge in current state. - -Example: - fpga_bridge3: fpga-bridge@ffc25080 { - compatible = "altr,socfpga-fpga2sdram-bridge"; - reg = <0xffc25080 0x4>; - bridge-enable = <0>; - }; diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..248639c6b560 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# + +title: FPGA Bridge + +maintainers: + - Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> + +properties: + $nodename: + pattern: "^fpga-bridge(@.*)?$" + + bridge-enable: + description: | + 0 if driver should disable bridge at startup + 1 if driver should enable bridge at startup + Default is to leave bridge in current state. + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 + enum: [ 0, 1 ] + +additionalProperties: true + +examples: + - | + fpga-bridge { + bridge-enable = <0>; + }; diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/xlnx,pr-decoupler.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/xlnx,pr-decoupler.yaml index a7d4b8e59e19..5bf731f9d99a 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/xlnx,pr-decoupler.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/xlnx,pr-decoupler.yaml @@ -9,6 +9,9 @@ title: Xilinx LogiCORE Partial Reconfig Decoupler/AXI shutdown manager Softcore maintainers: - Nava kishore Manne <nava.kishore.manne@amd.com> +allOf: + - $ref: fpga-bridge.yaml# + description: | The Xilinx LogiCORE Partial Reconfig(PR) Decoupler manages one or more decouplers/fpga bridges. The controller can decouple/disable the bridges @@ -51,7 +54,7 @@ required: - clocks - clock-names -additionalProperties: false +unevaluatedProperties: false examples: - |
Convert the generic fpga bridge DT binding to json-schema. Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> --- .../devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.txt | 13 -------- .../devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml | 30 +++++++++++++++++++ .../bindings/fpga/xlnx,pr-decoupler.yaml | 5 +++- 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.txt create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fpga/fpga-bridge.yaml