| Message ID | 20240126063500.2684087-2-wenst@chromium.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | bluetooth: mt7921s: Add binding and fixup existing dts | expand |
This is an automated email and please do not reply to this email. Dear Submitter, Thank you for submitting the patches to the linux bluetooth mailing list. While preparing the CI tests, the patches you submitted couldn't be applied to the current HEAD of the repository. ----- Output ----- error: arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8183-kukui-jacuzzi-pico6.dts: does not exist in index hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch' to see the failed patch Please resolve the issue and submit the patches again. --- Regards, Linux Bluetooth
Il 26/01/24 07:34, Chen-Yu Tsai ha scritto: > The MediaTek MT7921S is a WiFi/Bluetooth combo chip that works over > SDIO. While the Bluetooth function is fully discoverable, the chip > has a pin that can reset just the Bluetooth side, as opposed to the > full chip. This needs to be described in the device tree. > > Add a device tree binding for MT7921S Bluetooth over SDIO specifically > ot document the reset line. > > Cc: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com> > Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> > --- > Changes since v1: > - Reworded descriptions > - Moved binding maintainer section before description > - Added missing reference to bluetooth-controller.yaml > - Added missing GPIO header to example > > .../bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml | 53 +++++++++++++++++++ > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..ff11c95c816c > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: MediaTek MT7921S Bluetooth > + > +maintainers: > + - Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com> > + > +description: > + MT7921S is an SDIO-attached dual-radio WiFi+Bluetooth Combo chip; each > + function is its own SDIO function on a shared SDIO interface. The chip > + has two dedicated reset lines, one for each function core. > + This binding only covers the Bluetooth part of the chip. > + > +allOf: > + - $ref: bluetooth-controller.yaml# > + > +properties: > + compatible: > + enum: > + - mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth > + reg: > + const: 2 > + > + reset-gpios: > + maxItems: 1 > + description: > + An active-low reset line for the Bluetooth core; on typical M.2 > + key E modules this is the W_DISABLE2# pin. > + > +required: > + - compatible > + - reg > + > +additionalProperties: false > + > +examples: > + - | > + #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h> > + > + mmc { > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <0>; > + > + bluetooth@2 { > + compatible = "mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth"; > + reg = <2>; > + reset-gpios = <&pio 8 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; > + }; > + }; > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index b64a64ca7916..662957146852 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -13657,6 +13657,7 @@ M: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com> > L: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org > L: linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-subscribers) > S: Maintained > +F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml > F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mediatek-bluetooth.txt > F: drivers/bluetooth/btmtkuart.c >
On 26/01/2024 07:34, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > The MediaTek MT7921S is a WiFi/Bluetooth combo chip that works over > SDIO. While the Bluetooth function is fully discoverable, the chip > has a pin that can reset just the Bluetooth side, as opposed to the > full chip. This needs to be described in the device tree. > > Add a device tree binding for MT7921S Bluetooth over SDIO specifically > ot document the reset line. s/ot/to/ > > Cc: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com> > Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org> > --- > Changes since v1: > - Reworded descriptions > - Moved binding maintainer section before description > - Added missing reference to bluetooth-controller.yaml > - Added missing GPIO header to example > > .../bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml | 53 +++++++++++++++++++ > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..ff11c95c816c > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: MediaTek MT7921S Bluetooth > + > +maintainers: > + - Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com> > + > +description: > + MT7921S is an SDIO-attached dual-radio WiFi+Bluetooth Combo chip; each > + function is its own SDIO function on a shared SDIO interface. The chip > + has two dedicated reset lines, one for each function core. > + This binding only covers the Bluetooth part of the chip. > + > +allOf: > + - $ref: bluetooth-controller.yaml# > + > +properties: > + compatible: > + enum: > + - mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth Can it be also WiFi on separate bus? How many device nodes do you need for this device? Missing blank line. > + reg: > + const: 2 > + > + reset-gpios: > + maxItems: 1 > + description: > + An active-low reset line for the Bluetooth core; on typical M.2 > + key E modules this is the W_DISABLE2# pin. > + > +required: > + - compatible > + - reg > + > +additionalProperties: false Instead 'unevaluatedProperties: false' Best regards, Krzysztof
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 6:40 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 26/01/2024 07:34, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > The MediaTek MT7921S is a WiFi/Bluetooth combo chip that works over > > SDIO. While the Bluetooth function is fully discoverable, the chip > > has a pin that can reset just the Bluetooth side, as opposed to the > > full chip. This needs to be described in the device tree. > > > > Add a device tree binding for MT7921S Bluetooth over SDIO specifically > > ot document the reset line. > > s/ot/to/ > > > > > Cc: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com> > > Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org> > > --- > > Changes since v1: > > - Reworded descriptions > > - Moved binding maintainer section before description > > - Added missing reference to bluetooth-controller.yaml > > - Added missing GPIO header to example > > > > .../bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml | 53 +++++++++++++++++++ > > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > > 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..ff11c95c816c > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml > > @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > > +%YAML 1.2 > > +--- > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml# > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > + > > +title: MediaTek MT7921S Bluetooth > > + > > +maintainers: > > + - Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com> > > + > > +description: > > + MT7921S is an SDIO-attached dual-radio WiFi+Bluetooth Combo chip; each > > + function is its own SDIO function on a shared SDIO interface. The chip > > + has two dedicated reset lines, one for each function core. > > + This binding only covers the Bluetooth part of the chip. > > + > > +allOf: > > + - $ref: bluetooth-controller.yaml# > > + > > +properties: > > + compatible: > > + enum: > > + - mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth > > Can it be also WiFi on separate bus? How many device nodes do you need > for this device? For the "S" variant, WiFi is also on SDIO. For the other two variants, "U" and "E", WiFi goes over USB and PCIe respectively. On both those variants, Bluetooth can either go over USB or UART. That is what I gathered from the pinouts. There are a dozen GPIO pins which don't have detailed descriptions though. If you want a comprehensive binding of the whole chip and all its variants, I suggest we ask MediaTek to provide it instead. My goal with the binding is to document existing usage and allow me to upstream new device trees. For now we only need the Bluetooth node. The WiFi part is perfectly detectable, and the driver doesn't seem to need the WiFi reset pin. The Bluetooth driver only uses its reset pin to reset a hung controller. > Missing blank line. Will fix. > > + reg: > > + const: 2 > > + > > + reset-gpios: > > + maxItems: 1 > > + description: > > + An active-low reset line for the Bluetooth core; on typical M.2 > > + key E modules this is the W_DISABLE2# pin. > > + > > +required: > > + - compatible > > + - reg > > + > > +additionalProperties: false > > Instead 'unevaluatedProperties: false' Will fix. Thanks ChenYu
On 29/01/2024 04:38, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >>> +allOf: >>> + - $ref: bluetooth-controller.yaml# >>> + >>> +properties: >>> + compatible: >>> + enum: >>> + - mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth >> >> Can it be also WiFi on separate bus? How many device nodes do you need >> for this device? > > For the "S" variant, WiFi is also on SDIO. For the other two variants, > "U" and "E", WiFi goes over USB and PCIe respectively. On both those > variants, Bluetooth can either go over USB or UART. That is what I > gathered from the pinouts. There are a dozen GPIO pins which don't > have detailed descriptions though. If you want a comprehensive > binding of the whole chip and all its variants, I suggest we ask > MediaTek to provide it instead. My goal with the binding is to document > existing usage and allow me to upstream new device trees. > > For now we only need the Bluetooth node. The WiFi part is perfectly > detectable, and the driver doesn't seem to need the WiFi reset pin. > The Bluetooth driver only uses its reset pin to reset a hung controller. Then suffix "bluetooth" seems redundant. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 3:34 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 29/01/2024 04:38, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > >>> +allOf: > >>> + - $ref: bluetooth-controller.yaml# > >>> + > >>> +properties: > >>> + compatible: > >>> + enum: > >>> + - mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth > >> > >> Can it be also WiFi on separate bus? How many device nodes do you need > >> for this device? > > > > For the "S" variant, WiFi is also on SDIO. For the other two variants, > > "U" and "E", WiFi goes over USB and PCIe respectively. On both those > > variants, Bluetooth can either go over USB or UART. That is what I > > gathered from the pinouts. There are a dozen GPIO pins which don't > > have detailed descriptions though. If you want a comprehensive > > binding of the whole chip and all its variants, I suggest we ask > > MediaTek to provide it instead. My goal with the binding is to document > > existing usage and allow me to upstream new device trees. > > > > For now we only need the Bluetooth node. The WiFi part is perfectly > > detectable, and the driver doesn't seem to need the WiFi reset pin. > > The Bluetooth driver only uses its reset pin to reset a hung controller. > > Then suffix "bluetooth" seems redundant. I think keeping the suffix makes more sense though. The chip is a two function piece, and this only targets one of the functions. Also, the compatible string is already used in an existing driver [1] and soon-to-be in-tree device tree [2]. ChenYu [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/bluetooth/btmtksdio.c#L1414 [2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.8-rc1/source/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8183-kukui-jacuzzi-pico6.dts#L86
On 30/01/2024 04:32, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 3:34 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On 29/01/2024 04:38, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >> >>>>> +allOf: >>>>> + - $ref: bluetooth-controller.yaml# >>>>> + >>>>> +properties: >>>>> + compatible: >>>>> + enum: >>>>> + - mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth >>>> >>>> Can it be also WiFi on separate bus? How many device nodes do you need >>>> for this device? >>> >>> For the "S" variant, WiFi is also on SDIO. For the other two variants, >>> "U" and "E", WiFi goes over USB and PCIe respectively. On both those >>> variants, Bluetooth can either go over USB or UART. That is what I >>> gathered from the pinouts. There are a dozen GPIO pins which don't >>> have detailed descriptions though. If you want a comprehensive >>> binding of the whole chip and all its variants, I suggest we ask >>> MediaTek to provide it instead. My goal with the binding is to document >>> existing usage and allow me to upstream new device trees. >>> >>> For now we only need the Bluetooth node. The WiFi part is perfectly >>> detectable, and the driver doesn't seem to need the WiFi reset pin. >>> The Bluetooth driver only uses its reset pin to reset a hung controller. >> >> Then suffix "bluetooth" seems redundant. > > I think keeping the suffix makes more sense though. The chip is a two > function piece, and this only targets one of the functions. Also, the That's why I asked and you said there is only one interface: SDIO. > compatible string is already used in an existing driver [1] and > soon-to-be in-tree device tree [2]. That's not the way to upstream compatible. You cannot send it bypassing bindings and review and later claim that's an ABI. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 3:37 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 30/01/2024 04:32, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 3:34 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >> On 29/01/2024 04:38, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > >> > >>>>> +allOf: > >>>>> + - $ref: bluetooth-controller.yaml# > >>>>> + > >>>>> +properties: > >>>>> + compatible: > >>>>> + enum: > >>>>> + - mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth > >>>> > >>>> Can it be also WiFi on separate bus? How many device nodes do you need > >>>> for this device? > >>> > >>> For the "S" variant, WiFi is also on SDIO. For the other two variants, > >>> "U" and "E", WiFi goes over USB and PCIe respectively. On both those > >>> variants, Bluetooth can either go over USB or UART. That is what I > >>> gathered from the pinouts. There are a dozen GPIO pins which don't > >>> have detailed descriptions though. If you want a comprehensive > >>> binding of the whole chip and all its variants, I suggest we ask > >>> MediaTek to provide it instead. My goal with the binding is to document > >>> existing usage and allow me to upstream new device trees. > >>> > >>> For now we only need the Bluetooth node. The WiFi part is perfectly > >>> detectable, and the driver doesn't seem to need the WiFi reset pin. > >>> The Bluetooth driver only uses its reset pin to reset a hung controller. > >> > >> Then suffix "bluetooth" seems redundant. > > > > I think keeping the suffix makes more sense though. The chip is a two > > function piece, and this only targets one of the functions. Also, the > > That's why I asked and you said there is only one interface: SDIO. There's only one interface, SDIO, but two SDIO functions. The two functions, if both were to be described in the device tree, would be two separate nodes. We just don't have any use for the WiFi one right now. Does that make sense to keep the suffix? > > compatible string is already used in an existing driver [1] and > > soon-to-be in-tree device tree [2]. > > That's not the way to upstream compatible. You cannot send it bypassing > bindings and review and later claim that's an ABI. I get that. I can fix up the existing users where necessary. A proper binding would make the driver lookup be more efficient as well. Thanks ChenYu
On 30/01/2024 08:47, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 3:37 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On 30/01/2024 04:32, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 3:34 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski >>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 29/01/2024 04:38, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> +allOf: >>>>>>> + - $ref: bluetooth-controller.yaml# >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +properties: >>>>>>> + compatible: >>>>>>> + enum: >>>>>>> + - mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth >>>>>> >>>>>> Can it be also WiFi on separate bus? How many device nodes do you need >>>>>> for this device? >>>>> >>>>> For the "S" variant, WiFi is also on SDIO. For the other two variants, >>>>> "U" and "E", WiFi goes over USB and PCIe respectively. On both those >>>>> variants, Bluetooth can either go over USB or UART. That is what I >>>>> gathered from the pinouts. There are a dozen GPIO pins which don't >>>>> have detailed descriptions though. If you want a comprehensive >>>>> binding of the whole chip and all its variants, I suggest we ask >>>>> MediaTek to provide it instead. My goal with the binding is to document >>>>> existing usage and allow me to upstream new device trees. >>>>> >>>>> For now we only need the Bluetooth node. The WiFi part is perfectly >>>>> detectable, and the driver doesn't seem to need the WiFi reset pin. >>>>> The Bluetooth driver only uses its reset pin to reset a hung controller. >>>> >>>> Then suffix "bluetooth" seems redundant. >>> >>> I think keeping the suffix makes more sense though. The chip is a two >>> function piece, and this only targets one of the functions. Also, the >> >> That's why I asked and you said there is only one interface: SDIO. > > There's only one interface, SDIO, but two SDIO functions. The two > functions, if both were to be described in the device tree, would > be two separate nodes. We just don't have any use for the WiFi one > right now. Does that make sense to keep the suffix? Number of functions does not really matter. Number of interfaces on the bus would matter. Why would you have two separate nodes for the same SDIO interface? Or do you want to say there are two interfaces? Best regards, Krzysztof
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 05:25:38PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 30/01/2024 08:47, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 3:37 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >> On 30/01/2024 04:32, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 3:34 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > >>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 29/01/2024 04:38, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>> +allOf: > >>>>>>> + - $ref: bluetooth-controller.yaml# > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> +properties: > >>>>>>> + compatible: > >>>>>>> + enum: > >>>>>>> + - mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Can it be also WiFi on separate bus? How many device nodes do you need > >>>>>> for this device? > >>>>> > >>>>> For the "S" variant, WiFi is also on SDIO. For the other two variants, > >>>>> "U" and "E", WiFi goes over USB and PCIe respectively. On both those > >>>>> variants, Bluetooth can either go over USB or UART. That is what I > >>>>> gathered from the pinouts. There are a dozen GPIO pins which don't > >>>>> have detailed descriptions though. If you want a comprehensive > >>>>> binding of the whole chip and all its variants, I suggest we ask > >>>>> MediaTek to provide it instead. My goal with the binding is to document > >>>>> existing usage and allow me to upstream new device trees. > >>>>> > >>>>> For now we only need the Bluetooth node. The WiFi part is perfectly > >>>>> detectable, and the driver doesn't seem to need the WiFi reset pin. > >>>>> The Bluetooth driver only uses its reset pin to reset a hung controller. > >>>> > >>>> Then suffix "bluetooth" seems redundant. > >>> > >>> I think keeping the suffix makes more sense though. The chip is a two > >>> function piece, and this only targets one of the functions. Also, the > >> > >> That's why I asked and you said there is only one interface: SDIO. > > > > There's only one interface, SDIO, but two SDIO functions. The two > > functions, if both were to be described in the device tree, would > > be two separate nodes. We just don't have any use for the WiFi one > > right now. Does that make sense to keep the suffix? > > Number of functions does not really matter. Number of interfaces on the > bus would matter. Why would you have two separate nodes for the same > SDIO interface? Or do you want to say there are two interfaces? Right, one device at 2 addresses on a bus should be a node with 2 "reg" entries, not 2 nodes with 1 "reg" address each. Rob
(+CC Ulf Hansson) On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 6:38 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 05:25:38PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 30/01/2024 08:47, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 3:37 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> On 30/01/2024 04:32, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > >>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 3:34 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > >>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> On 29/01/2024 04:38, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>>>> +allOf: > > >>>>>>> + - $ref: bluetooth-controller.yaml# > > >>>>>>> + > > >>>>>>> +properties: > > >>>>>>> + compatible: > > >>>>>>> + enum: > > >>>>>>> + - mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Can it be also WiFi on separate bus? How many device nodes do you need > > >>>>>> for this device? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> For the "S" variant, WiFi is also on SDIO. For the other two variants, > > >>>>> "U" and "E", WiFi goes over USB and PCIe respectively. On both those > > >>>>> variants, Bluetooth can either go over USB or UART. That is what I > > >>>>> gathered from the pinouts. There are a dozen GPIO pins which don't > > >>>>> have detailed descriptions though. If you want a comprehensive > > >>>>> binding of the whole chip and all its variants, I suggest we ask > > >>>>> MediaTek to provide it instead. My goal with the binding is to document > > >>>>> existing usage and allow me to upstream new device trees. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> For now we only need the Bluetooth node. The WiFi part is perfectly > > >>>>> detectable, and the driver doesn't seem to need the WiFi reset pin. > > >>>>> The Bluetooth driver only uses its reset pin to reset a hung controller. > > >>>> > > >>>> Then suffix "bluetooth" seems redundant. > > >>> > > >>> I think keeping the suffix makes more sense though. The chip is a two > > >>> function piece, and this only targets one of the functions. Also, the > > >> > > >> That's why I asked and you said there is only one interface: SDIO. > > > > > > There's only one interface, SDIO, but two SDIO functions. The two > > > functions, if both were to be described in the device tree, would > > > be two separate nodes. We just don't have any use for the WiFi one > > > right now. Does that make sense to keep the suffix? > > > > Number of functions does not really matter. Number of interfaces on the > > bus would matter. Why would you have two separate nodes for the same > > SDIO interface? Or do you want to say there are two interfaces? There is only one external interface. I don't know how the functions are stitched together internally. It could be that the separate functions have nothing in common other than sharing a standard external SDIO interface. Each function can be individually controlled, and operations for different functions are directed internally to the corresponding core. > Right, one device at 2 addresses on a bus should be a node with 2 "reg" > entries, not 2 nodes with 1 "reg" address each. AFAICU that's not what the MMC controller binding, which I quote below, says. It implies that each SDIO function shall be a separate node under the MMC controller node. patternProperties: "^.*@[0-9]+$": type: object description: | On embedded systems the cards connected to a host may need additional properties. These can be specified in subnodes to the host controller node. The subnodes are identified by the standard \'reg\' property. Which information exactly can be specified depends on the bindings for the SDIO function driver for the subnode, as specified by the compatible string. properties: compatible: description: | Name of SDIO function following generic names recommended practice reg: items: - minimum: 0 maximum: 7 description: Must contain the SDIO function number of the function this subnode describes. A value of 0 denotes the memory SD function, values from 1 to 7 denote the SDIO functions. ChenYu
This is automated email and please do not reply to this email! Dear submitter, Thank you for submitting the patches to the linux bluetooth mailing list. This is a CI test results with your patch series: PW Link:https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/list/?series=820131 ---Test result--- Test Summary: CheckPatch PASS 1.53 seconds GitLint FAIL 0.85 seconds SubjectPrefix FAIL 0.42 seconds BuildKernel PASS 27.56 seconds CheckAllWarning PASS 30.18 seconds CheckSparse PASS 36.04 seconds CheckSmatch PASS 97.90 seconds BuildKernel32 PASS 26.84 seconds TestRunnerSetup PASS 498.06 seconds TestRunner_l2cap-tester PASS 17.12 seconds TestRunner_iso-tester PASS 32.74 seconds TestRunner_bnep-tester PASS 4.93 seconds TestRunner_mgmt-tester FAIL 109.47 seconds TestRunner_rfcomm-tester PASS 7.50 seconds TestRunner_sco-tester PASS 11.36 seconds TestRunner_ioctl-tester PASS 7.83 seconds TestRunner_mesh-tester PASS 5.86 seconds TestRunner_smp-tester PASS 9.24 seconds TestRunner_userchan-tester PASS 5.05 seconds IncrementalBuild PASS 29.82 seconds Details ############################## Test: GitLint - FAIL Desc: Run gitlint Output: [v2,1/2] dt-bindings: net: bluetooth: Add MediaTek MT7921S SDIO Bluetooth WARNING: I3 - ignore-body-lines: gitlint will be switching from using Python regex 'match' (match beginning) to 'search' (match anywhere) semantics. Please review your ignore-body-lines.regex option accordingly. To remove this warning, set general.regex-style-search=True. More details: https://jorisroovers.github.io/gitlint/configuration/#regex-style-search 23: B1 Line exceeds max length (99>80): " create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml" [v2,2/2] arm64: dts: mediatek: mt8183-pico6: Fix bluetooth node WARNING: I3 - ignore-body-lines: gitlint will be switching from using Python regex 'match' (match beginning) to 'search' (match anywhere) semantics. Please review your ignore-body-lines.regex option accordingly. To remove this warning, set general.regex-style-search=True. More details: https://jorisroovers.github.io/gitlint/configuration/#regex-style-search 10: B1 Line exceeds max length (81>80): "Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>" ############################## Test: SubjectPrefix - FAIL Desc: Check subject contains "Bluetooth" prefix Output: "Bluetooth: " prefix is not specified in the subject "Bluetooth: " prefix is not specified in the subject ############################## Test: TestRunner_mgmt-tester - FAIL Desc: Run mgmt-tester with test-runner Output: Total: 497, Passed: 486 (97.8%), Failed: 5, Not Run: 6 Failed Test Cases Read Ext Controller Info 1 Failed 0.089 seconds Read Ext Controller Info 2 Failed 0.096 seconds Read Ext Controller Info 3 Failed 0.093 seconds Read Ext Controller Info 4 Failed 0.090 seconds Read Ext Controller Info 5 Failed 0.111 seconds --- Regards, Linux Bluetooth
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 04:39, Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org> wrote: > > (+CC Ulf Hansson) > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 6:38 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 05:25:38PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > On 30/01/2024 08:47, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 3:37 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On 30/01/2024 04:32, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 3:34 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > >>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On 29/01/2024 04:38, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>> +allOf: > > > >>>>>>> + - $ref: bluetooth-controller.yaml# > > > >>>>>>> + > > > >>>>>>> +properties: > > > >>>>>>> + compatible: > > > >>>>>>> + enum: > > > >>>>>>> + - mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Can it be also WiFi on separate bus? How many device nodes do you need > > > >>>>>> for this device? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> For the "S" variant, WiFi is also on SDIO. For the other two variants, > > > >>>>> "U" and "E", WiFi goes over USB and PCIe respectively. On both those > > > >>>>> variants, Bluetooth can either go over USB or UART. That is what I > > > >>>>> gathered from the pinouts. There are a dozen GPIO pins which don't > > > >>>>> have detailed descriptions though. If you want a comprehensive > > > >>>>> binding of the whole chip and all its variants, I suggest we ask > > > >>>>> MediaTek to provide it instead. My goal with the binding is to document > > > >>>>> existing usage and allow me to upstream new device trees. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> For now we only need the Bluetooth node. The WiFi part is perfectly > > > >>>>> detectable, and the driver doesn't seem to need the WiFi reset pin. > > > >>>>> The Bluetooth driver only uses its reset pin to reset a hung controller. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Then suffix "bluetooth" seems redundant. > > > >>> > > > >>> I think keeping the suffix makes more sense though. The chip is a two > > > >>> function piece, and this only targets one of the functions. Also, the > > > >> > > > >> That's why I asked and you said there is only one interface: SDIO. > > > > > > > > There's only one interface, SDIO, but two SDIO functions. The two > > > > functions, if both were to be described in the device tree, would > > > > be two separate nodes. We just don't have any use for the WiFi one > > > > right now. Does that make sense to keep the suffix? > > > > > > Number of functions does not really matter. Number of interfaces on the > > > bus would matter. Why would you have two separate nodes for the same > > > SDIO interface? Or do you want to say there are two interfaces? > > There is only one external interface. I don't know how the functions > are stitched together internally. > > It could be that the separate functions have nothing in common other > than sharing a standard external SDIO interface. Each function can be > individually controlled, and operations for different functions are > directed internally to the corresponding core. > > > Right, one device at 2 addresses on a bus should be a node with 2 "reg" > > entries, not 2 nodes with 1 "reg" address each. > > AFAICU that's not what the MMC controller binding, which I quote below, > says. It implies that each SDIO function shall be a separate node under > the MMC controller node. Yes, that's what we decided to go with, a long time ago. At least in this particular case, I think it makes sense, as each function (child-node) may also describe additional resources routed to each function. A typical description could be for a WiFi-Bluetooth combo-chip, where each function may have its own clocks, irqs and regulators being routed. > > > patternProperties: > "^.*@[0-9]+$": > type: object > description: | > On embedded systems the cards connected to a host may need > additional properties. These can be specified in subnodes to the > host controller node. The subnodes are identified by the > standard \'reg\' property. Which information exactly can be > specified depends on the bindings for the SDIO function driver > for the subnode, as specified by the compatible string. > > properties: > compatible: > description: | > Name of SDIO function following generic names recommended > practice > > reg: > items: > - minimum: 0 > maximum: 7 > description: > Must contain the SDIO function number of the function this > subnode describes. A value of 0 denotes the memory SD > function, values from 1 to 7 denote the SDIO functions. > > > ChenYu Kind regards Uffe
On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 1:50 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 04:39, Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > (+CC Ulf Hansson) > > > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 6:38 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 05:25:38PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > On 30/01/2024 08:47, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 3:37 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> On 30/01/2024 04:32, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 3:34 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > > >>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On 29/01/2024 04:38, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>>>> +allOf: > > > > >>>>>>> + - $ref: bluetooth-controller.yaml# > > > > >>>>>>> + > > > > >>>>>>> +properties: > > > > >>>>>>> + compatible: > > > > >>>>>>> + enum: > > > > >>>>>>> + - mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Can it be also WiFi on separate bus? How many device nodes do you need > > > > >>>>>> for this device? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> For the "S" variant, WiFi is also on SDIO. For the other two variants, > > > > >>>>> "U" and "E", WiFi goes over USB and PCIe respectively. On both those > > > > >>>>> variants, Bluetooth can either go over USB or UART. That is what I > > > > >>>>> gathered from the pinouts. There are a dozen GPIO pins which don't > > > > >>>>> have detailed descriptions though. If you want a comprehensive > > > > >>>>> binding of the whole chip and all its variants, I suggest we ask > > > > >>>>> MediaTek to provide it instead. My goal with the binding is to document > > > > >>>>> existing usage and allow me to upstream new device trees. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> For now we only need the Bluetooth node. The WiFi part is perfectly > > > > >>>>> detectable, and the driver doesn't seem to need the WiFi reset pin. > > > > >>>>> The Bluetooth driver only uses its reset pin to reset a hung controller. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Then suffix "bluetooth" seems redundant. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I think keeping the suffix makes more sense though. The chip is a two > > > > >>> function piece, and this only targets one of the functions. Also, the > > > > >> > > > > >> That's why I asked and you said there is only one interface: SDIO. > > > > > > > > > > There's only one interface, SDIO, but two SDIO functions. The two > > > > > functions, if both were to be described in the device tree, would > > > > > be two separate nodes. We just don't have any use for the WiFi one > > > > > right now. Does that make sense to keep the suffix? > > > > > > > > Number of functions does not really matter. Number of interfaces on the > > > > bus would matter. Why would you have two separate nodes for the same > > > > SDIO interface? Or do you want to say there are two interfaces? > > > > There is only one external interface. I don't know how the functions > > are stitched together internally. > > > > It could be that the separate functions have nothing in common other > > than sharing a standard external SDIO interface. Each function can be > > individually controlled, and operations for different functions are > > directed internally to the corresponding core. > > > > > Right, one device at 2 addresses on a bus should be a node with 2 "reg" > > > entries, not 2 nodes with 1 "reg" address each. > > > > AFAICU that's not what the MMC controller binding, which I quote below, > > says. It implies that each SDIO function shall be a separate node under > > the MMC controller node. > > Yes, that's what we decided to go with, a long time ago. At least in > this particular case, I think it makes sense, as each function > (child-node) may also describe additional resources routed to each > function. > > A typical description could be for a WiFi-Bluetooth combo-chip, where > each function may have its own clocks, irqs and regulators being > routed. Rob, Krzysztof, does that help you understand why the binding and example are written with bluetooth being one node and WiFi (should it ever be added) being a separate node? It is based on the existing MMC controller bindings. ChenYu > > > > > > patternProperties: > > "^.*@[0-9]+$": > > type: object > > description: | > > On embedded systems the cards connected to a host may need > > additional properties. These can be specified in subnodes to the > > host controller node. The subnodes are identified by the > > standard \'reg\' property. Which information exactly can be > > specified depends on the bindings for the SDIO function driver > > for the subnode, as specified by the compatible string. > > > > properties: > > compatible: > > description: | > > Name of SDIO function following generic names recommended > > practice > > > > reg: > > items: > > - minimum: 0 > > maximum: 7 > > description: > > Must contain the SDIO function number of the function this > > subnode describes. A value of 0 denotes the memory SD > > function, values from 1 to 7 denote the SDIO functions. > > > > > > ChenYu > > Kind regards > Uffe
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..ff11c95c816c --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# + +title: MediaTek MT7921S Bluetooth + +maintainers: + - Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com> + +description: + MT7921S is an SDIO-attached dual-radio WiFi+Bluetooth Combo chip; each + function is its own SDIO function on a shared SDIO interface. The chip + has two dedicated reset lines, one for each function core. + This binding only covers the Bluetooth part of the chip. + +allOf: + - $ref: bluetooth-controller.yaml# + +properties: + compatible: + enum: + - mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth + reg: + const: 2 + + reset-gpios: + maxItems: 1 + description: + An active-low reset line for the Bluetooth core; on typical M.2 + key E modules this is the W_DISABLE2# pin. + +required: + - compatible + - reg + +additionalProperties: false + +examples: + - | + #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h> + + mmc { + #address-cells = <1>; + #size-cells = <0>; + + bluetooth@2 { + compatible = "mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth"; + reg = <2>; + reset-gpios = <&pio 8 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; + }; + }; diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index b64a64ca7916..662957146852 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -13657,6 +13657,7 @@ M: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com> L: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org L: linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-subscribers) S: Maintained +F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mediatek-bluetooth.txt F: drivers/bluetooth/btmtkuart.c
The MediaTek MT7921S is a WiFi/Bluetooth combo chip that works over SDIO. While the Bluetooth function is fully discoverable, the chip has a pin that can reset just the Bluetooth side, as opposed to the full chip. This needs to be described in the device tree. Add a device tree binding for MT7921S Bluetooth over SDIO specifically ot document the reset line. Cc: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org> --- Changes since v1: - Reworded descriptions - Moved binding maintainer section before description - Added missing reference to bluetooth-controller.yaml - Added missing GPIO header to example .../bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml | 53 +++++++++++++++++++ MAINTAINERS | 1 + 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/mediatek,mt7921s-bluetooth.yaml