Raspberrypi3: AUX Uart driver

Niteesh gsnb.gn at gmail.com
Wed Jan 15 05:27:46 UTC 2020


I commented out all FDT queries and everything works using ns16550 driver.
How do I load FDT blob using uboot, I tried using the default bootloader,
but
it doesn't work. I tried the following command but they don't work
fatload mmc 0 0x200000 kernel7.img
fatload mmc 0 0x1000 bcm2710-rpi-3-b.dtb
fdt addr 0x1000
fdt boardsetup
go 0x200080

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 9:40 PM Niteesh <gsnb.gn at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am finished with code, I tested it in QEMU emulator raspi2but it doesn't
> work
> when testing on real rpi3. I don't know if the problem is with loading the
> FDT
> or with my code?
> How do I send the code, so that you can take a look at it?
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 8:04 PM Niteesh <gsnb.gn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:57 PM Christian Mauderer <
>> christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/01/2020 19:04, Niteesh wrote:
>>> > The ns16550_context already has a field named baud_divisor, so if the
>>> > user passes
>>> > value for it, then we can skip the GetBaudDivisor function and use that
>>> > value instead.
>>> >
>>> > Is this approach okay?
>>>
>>> Is the driver still able to handle different baud rates with this? Does
>>> the ioctl call for setting the baudrate work?
>>
>> I didn't think about this, it won't work if we are using this method.
>> ns16550_set_attributes
>> calls ns16550_GetBaudDivisor, then I think we will have to stick with the
>> old method.
>>
>>>
>>>
>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 3:46 PM Niteesh <gsnb.gn at gmail.com
>>> > <mailto:gsnb.gn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >     On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 1:38 PM Christian Mauderer
>>> >     <christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
>>> >     <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >         On 12/01/2020 21:26, Niteesh wrote:
>>> >         > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 11:42 PM Christian Mauderer
>>> >         <list at c-mauderer.de <mailto:list at c-mauderer.de>
>>> >         > <mailto:list at c-mauderer.de <mailto:list at c-mauderer.de>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> >         >
>>> >         >     Hello Niteesh,
>>> >         >
>>> >         >     On 12/01/2020 16:06, Niteesh wrote:
>>> >         >     > The only issue, I faced while using this driver is the
>>> >         baud divisor is
>>> >         >     > calculated
>>> >         >     > by CLOCK_FREQ/(BAUD_RATE * 16) (*ns16550-context.c:68)*
>>> >         >     > but it should BAUD_DIV = (CLOCK_FREQ/(8 * BAUD_RATE)) -
>>> >         1, for Rpi3.
>>> >         >     > For testing, I assigned the baud divisor to 270 (115200
>>> >         bits/s) in
>>> >         >     > ns16550-context.c,
>>> >         >     > and everything works fine.
>>> >         >
>>> >         >     Sounds great. In NS16550_GetBaudDivisor there is already
>>> a
>>> >         case where
>>> >         >     the baudDivisor is calculated differently (depending on
>>> >         >     ctx->has_precision_clock_synthesizer and
>>> >         >     ctx->has_fractional_divider_register). If none of the two
>>> >         cases are ok
>>> >         >     for the controller you could just add another one.
>>> >         >
>>> >         > Can we pass in a function, which gets called, won't this be
>>> more
>>> >         > flexible? because
>>> >         > in the future if we have some other board that has a
>>> different
>>> >         > calculation for the baud rate
>>> >         > the function will take care of it.
>>> >
>>> >         It's possible. Please make sure to be compatible with the
>>> >         current API.
>>> >         For example if the pointer is NULL you should call the legacy
>>> >         function
>>> >         instead.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >     I will be adding an extra field, a function pointer to
>>> ns16550_context,
>>> >     the prototype of the function would be *uint32_t
>>> >     calculate_baud_divisor( ns16550_context * )*
>>> >     This is will calculate the baud divisor using its own formula and
>>> >     the initial baud.
>>> >     If this function is not NULL then it would be called inside
>>> >     *NS16550_GetBaudDivisor* function,
>>> >     *
>>> >     *
>>> >
>>> >         >
>>> >         >     >
>>> >         >     > For console selection, my plan is to search for the aux
>>> >         node using
>>> >         >     > compatible
>>> >         >     > property and if its status is enabled, then initialize
>>> >         the AUX
>>> >         >     uart and
>>> >         >     > set the BSP_output_char
>>> >         >     > to aux_output_char, else pl011_output_char. All this
>>> >         will be done
>>> >         >     inside
>>> >         >     > the uart_probe function,
>>> >         >     > except for the initialization of AUX which will be
>>> done in
>>> >         >     init_ctx_aux.
>>> >         >     > And finally, call the output char
>>> >         >     > function using *BSP_output_char. Do you have any neat
>>> >         way to do this?
>>> >         >
>>> >         >     I don't have an example for a similar case at hand. So:
>>> >         No, no neat way
>>> >         >     that I can tell you.
>>> >         >
>>> >         >     Before you start to write code: Please take a look at the
>>> >         different
>>> >         >     beagle variants what is possible. Is there a variant
>>> where
>>> >         AUX uart
>>> >         >     would be there but shouldn't be used as a console (one of
>>> >         the Zeros
>>> >         >     maybe or the compute module?). How does Raspbian or
>>> >         FreeBSD decide which
>>> >         >     port should be used? Maybe they decide based on the
>>> >         commandline.txt? In
>>> >         >     such a case it would be better to just initialize all
>>> >         active (in the
>>> >         >     fdt) serial ports and decide based on the commandline
>>> too.
>>> >         >
>>> >         >
>>> >         > The Documentation says the following:
>>> >         > *By default, on Raspberry Pis equipped with the
>>> >         wireless/Bluetooth*
>>> >         > *module (Raspberry Pi 3 and Raspberry Pi Zero W), **the PL011
>>> >         UART is*
>>> >         > *connected to the Bluetooth module, while the mini UART is
>>> >         used as the
>>> >         > primary UART and*
>>> >         > *will have a Linux console on it. On all other models, the
>>> >         PL011 is used
>>> >         > as the primary UART.
>>> >         >
>>> >         > *
>>> >         > *In Linux device terms, by default, /dev/ttyS0 refers to the
>>> >         mini UART,
>>> >         > and /dev/ttyAMA0 refers*
>>> >         > *to the PL011. The primary UART is the one assigned to the
>>> Linux
>>> >         > console, which depends on*
>>> >         > *the Raspberry Pi model as described above. There are also
>>> >         symlinks:
>>> >         > /dev/serial0, which always*
>>> >         > *refers to the primary UART (if enabled), and /dev/serial1,
>>> which
>>> >         > similarly always refers to the secondary UART (if enabled).*
>>> >         > *
>>> >         > *
>>> >         > I checked in all the DTB files, by decompiling them (files
>>> are
>>> >         > from
>>> https://github.com/raspberrypi/firmware/tree/master/boot).
>>> >         > In all board with support for wireless and bluetooth, the AuX
>>> >         is enabled
>>> >         > and serial0 points to it. So we could use serial0
>>> >         > to find the correct UART port. I think this is solid enough.
>>> >         So, should
>>> >         > I use this approach?
>>> >
>>> >         Sounds OK. If possible please initialize the other UART too if
>>> it is
>>> >         enabled in the FDT. Although we don't support bluetooth yet
>>> >         maybe there
>>> >         will be support in the future or someone wants to do it in the
>>> >         application.
>>> >
>>> >     I will go with this method then.
>>> >
>>> >         >
>>> >         > Or if using the command line, then we need to move the link
>>> to
>>> >         > CONSOLE_DEVICE to console_initialize, and parse the
>>> >         > command line twice. If this is no problem, then we could use
>>> this
>>> >         > approach also.
>>> >
>>> >         Would be possible too.
>>> >
>>> >         >
>>> >         >     >
>>> >         >     > And why don't we have a function similar
>>> >         to *of_device_is_available*,
>>> >         >     > since there will be more and more
>>> >         >     > FDT based boards, this will be really helpful.
>>> >         >
>>> >         >     I agree that it would be helpful. Seems that you just
>>> >         found a function
>>> >         >     that should be in a FDT framework.
>>> >         >
>>> >         >     RTEMS currently only has the basic libfdt functions and
>>> >         some RTEMS
>>> >         >     specific ones. The of_... functions belong to the FreeBSD
>>> >         "Open Firmware
>>> >         >     Bus" which is an abstraction layer on top of FDT. It
>>> would
>>> >         be great to
>>> >         >     identify useful ones and port them or provide an RTEMS
>>> >         implementation.
>>> >         >     Like already discussed this could be part of a GSoC
>>> project.
>>> >         >
>>> >         >     Best regards
>>> >         >
>>> >         >     Christian
>>> >         >
>>> >         >     >
>>> >         >     > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 12:57 AM Christian Mauderer
>>> >         >     <list at c-mauderer.de <mailto:list at c-mauderer.de>
>>> >         <mailto:list at c-mauderer.de <mailto:list at c-mauderer.de>>
>>> >         >     > <mailto:list at c-mauderer.de <mailto:list at c-mauderer.de>
>>> >         <mailto:list at c-mauderer.de <mailto:list at c-mauderer.de>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> >         >     >
>>> >         >     >     On 04/01/2020 09:32, Niteesh wrote:
>>> >         >     >     > We could now run RTEMS on Rpi3. I tried examples
>>> >         from the
>>> >         >     samples
>>> >         >     >     > section and they run
>>> >         >     >     > fine. But still, a lot of functionality has to
>>> >         tested since it
>>> >         >     >     uses the
>>> >         >     >     > RPI2 BSP. To test these examples
>>> >         >     >     > I used a simple driver for the AUX.
>>> >         >     >     > The documentation from BCM link
>>> >         >     >     >
>>> >         >     >
>>> >         >
>>> >           <
>>> https://www.raspberrypi.org/app/uploads/2012/02/BCM2835-ARM-Peripherals.pdf
>>> > (pg
>>> >         >     >     > no 10) states that
>>> >         >     >     >
>>> >         >     >     >
>>> >         >     >     >     *The implemented UART is not a 16650
>>> >         compatible UART However
>>> >         >     >     as far
>>> >         >     >     >     as possible the first 8 control and status
>>> >         registers are
>>> >         >     laid out
>>> >         >     >     >     like a 16550 UART.*
>>> >         >     >
>>> >         >     >     It also tells
>>> >         >     >
>>> >         >     >         "Al 16550 register bits which are not supported
>>> >         can be
>>> >         >     written but
>>> >         >     >     will be ignored and read back as 0. All control
>>> bits for
>>> >         >     simple UART
>>> >         >     >     receive/transmit operations are available."
>>> >         >     >
>>> >         >     >     So I would expect that not everything works like
>>> >         expected (for
>>> >         >     example
>>> >         >     >     setting DCD, DSR, DTR, RI - they are not there for
>>> >         the mini
>>> >         >     UART) but
>>> >         >     >     the basic stuff should work.
>>> >         >     >
>>> >         >     >     >
>>> >         >     >     >
>>> >         >     >     > My question is can we use the existing ns16550
>>> >         driver or
>>> >         >     should I
>>> >         >     >     create
>>> >         >     >     > a new one? I also checked the address of the
>>> >         registers the
>>> >         >     offsets
>>> >         >     >     don't
>>> >         >     >     > seem right to me, but someone should check and
>>> >         correct me if
>>> >         >     I am
>>> >         >     >     wrong.
>>> >         >     >
>>> >         >     >     If you compare the registers in the existing driver
>>> >         >     >     (NS16550_RECEIVE_BUFFER, ... in ns16550_p.h) and
>>> the
>>> >         one in
>>> >         >     the BCM
>>> >         >     >     datasheet the registers look very similar (at least
>>> >         from the
>>> >         >     position /
>>> >         >     >     function). I haven't done a bit by bit comparison
>>> >         yet. Please
>>> >         >     note that
>>> >         >     >     you have to do a conversion between the defines and
>>> >         register
>>> >         >     addresses.
>>> >         >     >     The define gives you a register index for a 32bit
>>> >         register. So
>>> >         >     you have
>>> >         >     >     to multiply by 4 to get an address. The driver is
>>> >         designed
>>> >         >     that you
>>> >         >     >     provide a setRegister and getRegister function that
>>> >         can do this
>>> >         >     >     conversion.
>>> >         >     >
>>> >         >     >     Where did you find differences?
>>> >         >     >
>>> >         >     >     I would suggest to just try the driver.
>>> >         >     >
>>> >         >
>>> >         >
>>> >         > _______________________________________________
>>> >         > devel mailing list
>>> >         > devel at rtems.org <mailto:devel at rtems.org>
>>> >         > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>> >         >
>>> >
>>> >         --
>>> >         --------------------------------------------
>>> >         embedded brains GmbH
>>> >         Herr Christian Mauderer
>>> >         Dornierstr. 4
>>> >         D-82178 Puchheim
>>> >         Germany
>>> >         email: christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
>>> >         <mailto:christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de>
>>> >         Phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 18
>>> >         Fax:   +49-89-18 94 741 - 08
>>> >         PGP: Public key available on request.
>>> >
>>> >         Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des
>>> >         EHUG.
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>> embedded brains GmbH
>>> Herr Christian Mauderer
>>> Dornierstr. 4
>>> D-82178 Puchheim
>>> Germany
>>> email: christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
>>> Phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 18
>>> Fax:   +49-89-18 94 741 - 08
>>> PGP: Public key available on request.
>>>
>>> Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20200115/33498e7c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the devel mailing list