[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f5e162ce-090e-4561-b27c-2b041ca0bee9@email.android.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 00:07:03 +0000
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Tabi Timur-B04825 <B04825@...escale.com>
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)
Tabi Timur-B04825 <B04825@...escale.com> wrote:
>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.
>From the discussion in the previous thread, I'm sufficiently convinced that it is an important use case. I certainly disagree with the assertion that it is always easier to do it in U-Boot. Sometimes the kernel is the better place.
>
>> 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?
Not if the driver is only responsible for loading the bitstream. There is already a xilinx driver that does things this way.
> Why not skip the
>device tree update and just tell the driver what the new capabilities
>are?
How? What format will that data be in if not device tree?
g.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
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