linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Device Tree Overlays Proposal (Was Re: capebus moving omap

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6AE080B68D46FC4BA2D2769E68D765B708174B7D@039-SN2MPN1-023.039d.mgd.msft.net>
Date:	Mon, 5 Nov 2012 21:40:16 +0000
From:	Tabi Timur-B04825 <B04825@...escale.com>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
CC:	Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@...aro.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Wood Scott-B07421 <B07421@...escale.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>, Matt Porter <mporter@...com>,
	Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>, Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>,
	"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org" 
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Device Tree Overlays Proposal (Was Re: capebus moving
 omap_devices to mach-omap2)

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca> wrote:

> Jane is building custom BeagleBone expansion boards called 'capes'. She
> can boot the system with a stock BeagleBoard device tree, but additional
> data is needed before a cape can be used. She could replace the FDT file
> used by U-Boot with one that contains the extra data, but she uses the
> same Linux system image regardless of the cape, and it is inconvenient
> to have to select a different device tree at boot time depending on the
> cape.

What's wrong with having the boot loader detect the presence of the
Cape and update the device tree accordingly?  We do this all the time
in U-Boot.  Doing stuff like reading EEPROMs and testing for the
presence of hardware is easier in U-Boot than in Linux.

For configurations that can be determined by the boot loader, I'm not
sure overlays are practical.

> Nigel is building a real-time video processing system around a MIPS SoC
> and a Virtex FPGA. Video data is streamed through the FPGA for post
> processing operations like motion tracking or compression. The FPGA is
> configured via the SPI bus, and is also connected to GPIO lines and the
> memory mapped peripheral bus. Nigel has designed several FPGA
> configurations for different video processing tasks. The user will
> choose which configuration to load which can even be reprogrammed at
> runtime to switch tasks.

Now this, on the other hand, makes more sense.  If the hardware
configuration is literally user-configurable, then okay.  However, I'm
not sure I see the need to update the device tree.  The device tree is
generally for hardware that cannot be discovered/probed by the device
driver.  If we're loading a configuration from user space, doesn't the
driver already know what the hardware's capabilities are, since it's
the one doing the uploading of a new FPGA code?  Why not skip the
device tree update and just tell the driver what the new capabilities
are?

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/