The patch set in general is to add support for the VSC7512, and
eventually the VSC7511, VSC7513 and VSC7514 devices controlled over
SPI. Specifically this patch set enables pinctrl, serial gpio expander
access, and control of an internal and an external MDIO bus.

I have mentioned previously:
The hardware setup I'm using for development is a beaglebone black, with
jumpers from SPI0 to the microchip VSC7512 dev board. The microchip dev
board has been modified to not boot from flash, but wait for SPI. An
ethernet cable is connected from the beaglebone ethernet to port 0 of
the dev board. Network functionality will be included in a future patch set.

The device tree I'm using is included in the documentation, so I'll not
include that in this cover letter. I have exported the serial GPIOs to the
LEDs, and verified functionality via
"echo heartbeat > sys/class/leds/port0led/trigger"

/ {
	vscleds {
		compatible = "gpio-leds";
		vscled@0 {
			label = "port0led";
			gpios = <&sgpio_out1 0 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
			default-state = "off";
		};
		vscled@1 {
			label = "port0led1";
			gpios = <&sgpio_out1 0 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
			default-state = "off";
		};
[ ... ]
	};
};

I verified module functionality with modprobe ocelot-soc;
modprobe pinctrl-ocelot;
modprobe pinctrl-microchip-sgpio;

I only have hardware to test the last patch, so any testers are welcome.
I've been extra cautious about the ocelot_regmap_from_resource helper
function, both before and after the last patch. I accidentally broke it
in the past and would like to avoid doing so again.


RFC history:
v1 (accidentally named vN)
	* Initial architecture. Not functional
	* General concepts laid out

v2
	* Near functional. No CPU port communication, but control over all
	external ports
	* Cleaned up regmap implementation from v1

v3
	* Functional
	* Shared MDIO transactions routed through mdio-mscc-miim
	* CPU / NPI port enabled by way of vsc7512_enable_npi_port /
	felix->info->enable_npi_port
	* NPI port tagging functional - Requires a CPU port driver that supports
	frames of 1520 bytes. Verified with a patch to the cpsw driver

v4
    * Functional
    * Device tree fixes
    * Add hooks for pinctrl-ocelot - some functionality by way of sysfs
    * Add hooks for pinctrl-microsemi-sgpio - not yet fully functional
    * Remove lynx_pcs interface for a generic phylink_pcs. The goal here
    is to have an ocelot_pcs that will work for each configuration of
    every port.

v5
    * Restructured to MFD
    * Several commits were split out, submitted, and accepted
    * pinctrl-ocelot believed to be fully functional (requires commits
    from the linux-pinctrl tree)
    * External MDIO bus believed to be fully functional

v6
    * Applied several suggestions from the last RFC from Lee Jones. I
      hope I didn't miss anything.
    * Clean up MFD core - SPI interaction. They no longer use callbacks.
    * regmaps get registered to the child device, and don't attempt to
      get shared. It seems if a regmap is to be shared, that should be
      solved with syscon, not dev or mfd.

v7
    * Applied as much as I could from Lee and Vladimir's suggestions. As
      always, the feedback is greatly appreciated!
    * Remove "ocelot_spi" container complication
    * Move internal MDIO bus from ocelot_ext to MFD, with a devicetree
      change to match
    * Add initial HSIO support
    * Switch to IORESOURCE_REG for resource definitions

v8
    * Applied another round of suggestions from Lee and Vladimir
    * Utilize regmap bus reads, which speeds bulk transfers up by an
      order of magnitude
    * Add two additional patches to utilize phylink_generic_validate
    * Changed GPL V2 to GPL in licenses where applicable (checkpatch)
    * Remove initial hsio/serdes changes from the RFC

v9
    * Submitting as a PATCH instead of an RFC
    * Remove switch functionality - will be a separate patch set
    * Remove Kconfig tristate module options
    * Another round of suggestions from Lee, Vladimir, and Andy. Many
      thanks!
    * Add documentation
    * Update maintainers

v10
    * Fix warming by removing unused function

v11
    * Suggestions from Rob and Andy. Thanks!
    * Add pinctrl module functionality back and fixing those features
    * Fix aarch64 compiler error

v12
    * Suggestions from Vladimir, Andy, Randy, and Rob. Thanks as always!
    * Utilize dev_get_regmap to clean up interfaces
    * MFD_OCELOT can be a module

v13
    * Suggestions from Andy for code cleanup, missed includes, forward
      declarations, module names.
    * Fix x86 allmodconfig build
    * MFD module name is now ocelot-soc
    * Add module names to Kconfig for pinctrl changes

Colin Foster (9):
  mfd: ocelot: add helper to get regmap from a resource
  net: mdio: mscc-miim: add ability to be used in a non-mmio
    configuration
  pinctrl: ocelot: allow pinctrl-ocelot to be loaded as a module
  pinctrl: ocelot: add ability to be used in a non-mmio configuration
  pinctrl: microchip-sgpio: allow sgpio driver to be used as a module
  pinctrl: microchip-sgpio: add ability to be used in a non-mmio
    configuration
  resource: add define macro for register address resources
  dt-bindings: mfd: ocelot: add bindings for VSC7512
  mfd: ocelot: add support for the vsc7512 chip via spi

 .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/mscc,ocelot.yaml  | 160 +++++++++
 MAINTAINERS                                   |   7 +
 drivers/mfd/Kconfig                           |  21 ++
 drivers/mfd/Makefile                          |   3 +
 drivers/mfd/ocelot-core.c                     | 169 ++++++++++
 drivers/mfd/ocelot-spi.c                      | 317 ++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/mfd/ocelot.h                          |  34 ++
 drivers/net/mdio/mdio-mscc-miim.c             |  42 +--
 drivers/pinctrl/Kconfig                       |  12 +-
 drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-microchip-sgpio.c     |  14 +-
 drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ocelot.c              |  22 +-
 include/linux/ioport.h                        |   5 +
 include/linux/mfd/ocelot.h                    |  55 +++
 13 files changed, 810 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mscc,ocelot.yaml
 create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/ocelot-core.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/ocelot-spi.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/ocelot.h
 create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/ocelot.h

-- 
2.25.1

On Tue,  5 Jul 2022 13:47:34 -0700 Colin Foster wrote:
> The patch set in general is to add support for the VSC7512, and
> eventually the VSC7511, VSC7513 and VSC7514 devices controlled over
> SPI. Specifically this patch set enables pinctrl, serial gpio expander
> access, and control of an internal and an external MDIO bus.

Can this go into net-next if there are no more complains over the
weekend? Anyone still planning to review?

Linus's ack on patch 6 and an MFD Ack from Lee would be great.

On Fri, 08 Jul 2022, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

> On Tue,  5 Jul 2022 13:47:34 -0700 Colin Foster wrote:
> > The patch set in general is to add support for the VSC7512, and
> > eventually the VSC7511, VSC7513 and VSC7514 devices controlled over
> > SPI. Specifically this patch set enables pinctrl, serial gpio expander
> > access, and control of an internal and an external MDIO bus.
> 
> Can this go into net-next if there are no more complains over the
> weekend? Anyone still planning to review?

As the subsystem with the fewest changes, I'm not sure why it would.

I'd planed to route this in via MFD and send out a pull-request for
other sub-system maintainers to pull from.

If you would like to co-ordinate it instead, you'd be welcome to.
However, I (and probably Linus) would need a succinct immutable branch
to pull from.

> Linus's ack on patch 6 and an MFD Ack from Lee would be great.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 08:51:35 +0100 Lee Jones wrote:
> > Can this go into net-next if there are no more complains over the
> > weekend? Anyone still planning to review?  
> 
> As the subsystem with the fewest changes, I'm not sure why it would.

Yeah, just going by the tag in the subject. I have no preference,
looks like it applies cleanly to Linus'.

> I'd planed to route this in via MFD and send out a pull-request for
> other sub-system maintainers to pull from.
> 
> If you would like to co-ordinate it instead, you'd be welcome to.
> However, I (and probably Linus) would need a succinct immutable branch
> to pull from.

Oh, that'd be perfect, sorry, I didn't realize there was already a plan.
If you're willing to carry on as intended, please do.

Colin if there is another version please make a note of the above
merging plan in the cover letter and drop the net-next tag. 
Just in  case my goldfish brain forgets.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 11:21:16AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 08:51:35 +0100 Lee Jones wrote:
> > > Can this go into net-next if there are no more complains over the
> > > weekend? Anyone still planning to review?  
> > 
> > As the subsystem with the fewest changes, I'm not sure why it would.
> 
> Yeah, just going by the tag in the subject. I have no preference,
> looks like it applies cleanly to Linus'.
> 
> > I'd planed to route this in via MFD and send out a pull-request for
> > other sub-system maintainers to pull from.
> > 
> > If you would like to co-ordinate it instead, you'd be welcome to.
> > However, I (and probably Linus) would need a succinct immutable branch
> > to pull from.
> 
> Oh, that'd be perfect, sorry, I didn't realize there was already a plan.
> If you're willing to carry on as intended, please do.
> 
> Colin if there is another version please make a note of the above
> merging plan in the cover letter and drop the net-next tag. 
> Just in  case my goldfish brain forgets.

I wasn't sure of the plan, but this makes sense to bring it through MFD.
Fortunately there's enough work for me on the DSA front that there's no
way that'll land before this merge window - so I have no objection to it
going any non-net-next path.

I'll look to Lee as to whether there should be a v14 with the header
guard addition per Vladimir's review, or whether that should be in a
future patch set. I'm happy to go either way.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 07:10:48PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 11:21:16AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 08:51:35 +0100 Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > Can this go into net-next if there are no more complains over the
> > > > weekend? Anyone still planning to review?  
> > > 
> > > As the subsystem with the fewest changes, I'm not sure why it would.
> > 
> > Yeah, just going by the tag in the subject. I have no preference,
> > looks like it applies cleanly to Linus'.
> > 
> > > I'd planed to route this in via MFD and send out a pull-request for
> > > other sub-system maintainers to pull from.
> > > 
> > > If you would like to co-ordinate it instead, you'd be welcome to.
> > > However, I (and probably Linus) would need a succinct immutable branch
> > > to pull from.
> > 
> > Oh, that'd be perfect, sorry, I didn't realize there was already a plan.
> > If you're willing to carry on as intended, please do.
> > 
> > Colin if there is another version please make a note of the above
> > merging plan in the cover letter and drop the net-next tag. 
> > Just in  case my goldfish brain forgets.
> 
> I wasn't sure of the plan, but this makes sense to bring it through MFD.
> Fortunately there's enough work for me on the DSA front that there's no
> way that'll land before this merge window - so I have no objection to it
> going any non-net-next path.
> 
> I'll look to Lee as to whether there should be a v14 with the header
> guard addition per Vladimir's review, or whether that should be in a
> future patch set. I'm happy to go either way.

From my side, the changes to this patch set can be incremental, I'd be
happy if Lee would take them as is.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 10:08:57PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 07:10:48PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 11:21:16AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 08:51:35 +0100 Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > Can this go into net-next if there are no more complains over the
> > > > > weekend? Anyone still planning to review?  
> > > > 
> > > > As the subsystem with the fewest changes, I'm not sure why it would.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, just going by the tag in the subject. I have no preference,
> > > looks like it applies cleanly to Linus'.
> > > 
> > > > I'd planed to route this in via MFD and send out a pull-request for
> > > > other sub-system maintainers to pull from.
> > > > 
> > > > If you would like to co-ordinate it instead, you'd be welcome to.
> > > > However, I (and probably Linus) would need a succinct immutable branch
> > > > to pull from.
> > > 
> > > Oh, that'd be perfect, sorry, I didn't realize there was already a plan.
> > > If you're willing to carry on as intended, please do.
> > > 
> > > Colin if there is another version please make a note of the above
> > > merging plan in the cover letter and drop the net-next tag. 
> > > Just in  case my goldfish brain forgets.
> > 
> > I wasn't sure of the plan, but this makes sense to bring it through MFD.
> > Fortunately there's enough work for me on the DSA front that there's no
> > way that'll land before this merge window - so I have no objection to it
> > going any non-net-next path.
> > 
> > I'll look to Lee as to whether there should be a v14 with the header
> > guard addition per Vladimir's review, or whether that should be in a
> > future patch set. I'm happy to go either way.
> 
> From my side, the changes to this patch set can be incremental, I'd be
> happy if Lee would take them as is.

Just making sure this hasn't slipped through the cracks. Should I resend
this next week (Monday / Tuesday?) with the Reviewed-by tags and switch
it to MFD instead of net-next?

On Fri, 15 Jul 2022, Colin Foster wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 10:08:57PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 07:10:48PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 11:21:16AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 08:51:35 +0100 Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > Can this go into net-next if there are no more complains over the
> > > > > > weekend? Anyone still planning to review?  
> > > > > 
> > > > > As the subsystem with the fewest changes, I'm not sure why it would.
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah, just going by the tag in the subject. I have no preference,
> > > > looks like it applies cleanly to Linus'.
> > > > 
> > > > > I'd planed to route this in via MFD and send out a pull-request for
> > > > > other sub-system maintainers to pull from.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If you would like to co-ordinate it instead, you'd be welcome to.
> > > > > However, I (and probably Linus) would need a succinct immutable branch
> > > > > to pull from.
> > > > 
> > > > Oh, that'd be perfect, sorry, I didn't realize there was already a plan.
> > > > If you're willing to carry on as intended, please do.
> > > > 
> > > > Colin if there is another version please make a note of the above
> > > > merging plan in the cover letter and drop the net-next tag. 
> > > > Just in  case my goldfish brain forgets.
> > > 
> > > I wasn't sure of the plan, but this makes sense to bring it through MFD.
> > > Fortunately there's enough work for me on the DSA front that there's no
> > > way that'll land before this merge window - so I have no objection to it
> > > going any non-net-next path.
> > > 
> > > I'll look to Lee as to whether there should be a v14 with the header
> > > guard addition per Vladimir's review, or whether that should be in a
> > > future patch set. I'm happy to go either way.
> > 
> > From my side, the changes to this patch set can be incremental, I'd be
> > happy if Lee would take them as is.
> 
> Just making sure this hasn't slipped through the cracks. Should I resend
> this next week (Monday / Tuesday?) with the Reviewed-by tags and switch
> it to MFD instead of net-next?

Not yet please.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog