Message-ID: <CACxGe6vDzmPWsOZ53HTwkYmDEivg9TpnRrvudY2FK95V06O24w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:14:41 +0000
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>
Cc:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@...aro.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>, Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
	Matt Porter <mporter@...com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Device Tree Overlays Proposal (Was Re: capebus moving
 omap_devices to mach-omap2)

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
<panto@...oniou-consulting.com> wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Nov 5, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
>> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
>> suggestions greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Device Tree Overlay Feature
>>
>> Purpose
>> =======
>> Sometimes it is not convenient to describe an entire system with a
>> single FDT. For example, processor modules that are plugged into one or
>> more modules (a la the BeagleBone), or systems with an FPGA peripheral
>> that is programmed after the system is booted.
>>
>> For these cases it is proposed to implement an overlay feature for the
>> so that the initial device tree data can be modified by userspace at
>> runtime by loading additional overlay FDTs that amend the original data.
>>
>> User Stories
>> ============
>> Note - These are potential use cases, but just because it is listed here
>> doesn't mean it is important. I just want to thoroughly think through the
>> implications before making design decisions.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Jane solves this problem by storing an FDT overlay for each cape in the
>> root filesystem. When the kernel detects that a cape is installed it
>> reads the cape's eeprom to identify it and uses request_firmware() to
>> obtain the appropriate overlay. Userspace passes the overlay to the
>> kernel in the normal way. If the cape doesn't have an eeprom, then the
>> kernel will still use firmware_request(), but userspace needs to already
>> know which cape is installed.
>
> Jane is a really productive hardware engineer - she manages to fix a
> number of problems with her cape design by spinning different revisions
> of the cape. Using the flexibility that the DT provides, documents and
> defines the hardware changes of the cape revisions in the FDT overlay.
> The loader matches the revision of the cape with the proper FDT overlay
> so that the drivers are relieved of having to do revision management.

Okay

>> By installing dtc on the Pi, Mandy compiles the overlay for her
>> prototype hardware. However, she doesn't have a copy of the Pi's
>> original FDT source, so instead she uses the dtc 'fs' input format to
>> compile the overlay file against the live DT data in /proc.
>
> Jane (the cape designer) can use this too. Developing the cape, she really
> appreciates that she doesn't have to reboot every time she makes a change
> in the cape hardware. By removing the FDT overlay, compiling with the dtc
> on the board, and re-inserting the overlay, she can be more productive by
> waiting less.

Yes, but I'll leave this paragraph out of the spec. It isn't
significantly different from what is already there.

> Johnny, Jane's little son, doesn't know anything about device trees, linux
> kernel trees, or hard-core s/w engineering. He is a bright kid, and due to
> the board having a node.js based educational electronic design kit, he
> can use the web-based simplified development environment, that allows
> him graphically to connect the parts in his kit. He can save the design
> and the IDE creates on the fly the DT overlay for later use.

Yes.

>> Joanne has purchased one of Jane's capes and packaged it into a rugged
>> case for data logging. As far as Joanne is concerned, the BeagleBone and
>> cape together are a single unit and she'd prefer a single monolithic FDT
>> instead of using an FDT overlay.
>> Option A: Using dtc, she uses the BeagleBone and cape .dts source files
>>          to generate a single .dtb for the entire system which is
>>          loaded by U-Boot. -or-
> Unlikely.
>> Option B: Joanne uses a tool to merge the BeagleBone and cape .dtb files
>>          (instead of .dts files), -or-
> Possible but low probability.
>> Option C: U-Boot loads both the base and overlay FDT files, merges them,
>>          and passes the resolved tree to the kernel.
> Could be made to work. Only really required if Joanne wants the
> cape interface to work for u-boot too. For example if the cape has some
> kind of network interface that u-boot will use to boot from.

Unlikely for your focus perhaps, but I'm trying to capture all the
relevant permutations, and I can guarantee that some people really
will want this. If not on the bone, then on some other platform.

>> Summary points:
>> - Create an FDT overlay data format and usage model
>>  - SHALL reliable resolve or validate of phandles between base and
>>    overlay trees
>>  - SHOULD reliably handle changes between different underlying overlays
>>    (ie. what happens to existing .dtb overly files if the structure of
>>    the dtb it is layered over changes. If not possible, then SHALL
>>    detect when the base tree doesn't match and refuse to apply the
>>    overlay.
>> - dts syntax needs to be extended for overlay .dtb files
>> - DTC tool needs to be modified to support overlay .dtb generation
>> - Overlays SHOULD be able to be applied either by firmware or the kernel
>> - libfdt SHALL be extended to parse and apply overlays
>
> - ftdump should be fixed and work for the overlay syntax too.

Okay

> This is much grander in vision that I had in mind :)
>
> It can handle our use cases, but I'm worried if we're bitting more
> that what we can chew. Perhaps a staged approach? I.e. target the
> low hanging fruit first, get it work, and then work on the hardest
> parts?

Actually, I'm not to scared about the work and yes I think that it
*must* be a staged approach. To start focus on adding overlays without
phandle resolution (phandles must match) or unloading support.
Unloading and phandle resolution can be separate follow-on features.
Unloading and phandle resolution are the hard bits anyway.

>> It may be sufficient to solve it by making the phandle values less
>> volatile. Right now dtc generates phandles linearly. Generated phandles
>> could be overridden with explicit phandle properties, but it isn't a
>> fantastic solution. Perhaps generating the phandle from a hash of the
>> node name would be sufficient.
>>
>
> I doubt the hash method will work reliably. We only have 32 bits to work with,
> nothing like the SHA hashes of git.
>

I think the biggest trees have on the order of 100 nodes and a 32 bit
numberspace is 4Gi. Surely collisions can be avoided.  :-)

It is also possible to explicitly specify the phandle when the hash
method breaks down, or if the node full path needs to change, but I'd
like to avoid that approach as much as possible.

> 5) Have a method to attach FDT overlay to a kernel module.
>
> For some drivers it might be better if the kernel module and the
> DT overlay is packaged in the same file. You be in a part of
> the module binary as a special section that request_firmware can
> pick up automatically.

It used to be that firmware blobs could be linked into the kernel and
request_firmware() would find them. I'd like to investigate if that is
still possible.

>> Add support to remove an overlay (question: is this important?)
>>
>
> For hot-plugging, you need it. Whether kernel code can deal with
> large parts of the DT going away... How about we use the dead
> properties method and move/tag the removed modes as such, and not
> really remove them.

Nodes already use krefs, and I'm thinking about making them kobjects
so that they appear in sysfs and we'll have some tools to figure out
when reference counts don't get decremented properly.

>> Workitems:
>> Modify of_platform_populate() to get new node notifications
>> Modify of_register_spi_devices to get new node notifications
>> Modify of_register_i2c_devices to get new node notifications
>>
>
> w1 is the same. Possibly more.

w1?

>
> Another can of worms is the pinctrl nodes.

Yes... new pinctrl data would need to trigger adding new data to
pinctrl. I don't know if the pinctrl api supports that.

>
>> 6) Other work
>> -------------
>> The device node user space interface could use some work. Here are some
>> random work items that are peripherally related to the overlay feature.
>>
>> Other Workitems:
>> Define FDT schema syntax
>> Add FDT schema support to FDT (basically lint-style testing)
>> Investigate runtime schema validation
>> Make device_nodes first-class kobjects and remove the procfs interface
>> - it can be emulated with a symlink
>> Add symlinks from devices to devicetree nodes in sysfs
>
> That's going to take a while :)

:-) But as you've already pointed out this should be taken in a staged
approach. Simple overlay support is still useful and shouldn't be too
complex to implement.

g.
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists