Date:	Fri, 9 Nov 2012 16:40:15 +0100
From:	Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>
To:	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Cc:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	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>,
	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, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Device Tree Overlays Proposal (Was Re: capebus moving omap_devices to mach-omap2)

Hi David,

On Nov 9, 2012, at 3:26 AM, David Gibson wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 08:40:30PM +0000, 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
> 
> Hrm.  So, you may yet convince me otherwise, but I'm really getting a
> feeling of overengineering from this proposal so far.
> 
>> 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
>> ============
> 
> [snip]
> 
> The user stories mostly sound reasonable to me, but I don't know
> enough about the hardware in question to know what they'll mean in
> terms of what needs to be added to the base device tree.
> 
>> Summary points:
>> - Create an FDT overlay data format and usage model
>>  - SHALL reliable resolve or validate of phandles between base and
>>    overlay trees
> 
> So, I'm not at all clear on what this proposed phandle validation
> would involve.  I'm also not convinced it's as necessary as you
> think, more on that below.
> 
> [snip - lots of technical stuff]
> 
> So, let me take a stab at this from a more bottom-up approach, and see
> if we meet in the middle somewhere.  As I discussed in the other
> thread with Daniel Mack, I can see two different operationso on the
> fdt that might be useful in this context.  I think of them as "graft"
> - which takes one fdt and adds it as a new subtree to an existing fdt
> - and "overlay" where a new fdt adds or overrides arbitrary properties
> in an existing tree.  Overlay is more or less what we do at the source
> level in dtc already.
> 
> Overlay is obviously more general - you can add, change and possibly
> delete any existing node or property.
> 
> Graft can only add new nodes and properties, not modify existing ones.
> But that restriction comes with some advantages: reversing the
> operation is just a matter of deleting the subtree with no extra
> tracking info required.  It's simple to see how to have rules or
> permissions about where subtrees can be grafted, and if the graft
> point is identified by a label or id, rather than full path, it
> automatically adapts to at least some changes in the base tree
> structure.
> 
> I think graft is basically a safer operation, particular if we're
> doing this at runtime with userspace passing in these fdt fragments.
> In fact I'd go so far as to say if you really need the full overlay
> functionality, then you really ought to be working at the bootloader
> or early kernel load level to assemble the correct full device tree.
> And as Mitch says, an existing programming language (C, OFW Forth or
> whatever as you please) will serve you better for this sort of general
> manipulation than a limited template system.
> 
> I also think graft will handle most of your use cases, although as I
> said I don't fully understand the implications of some of them, so I
> could be wrong.  So, the actual insertion of the subtree is pretty
> trivial to implement.  phandles are the obvious other matter to be
> dealt with.  I haven't found the right thread where what you've
> envisaged so far is discussed, so here are things I can see:
> 

An overlay is more generic and can handle more complex cases.
For our use case, a graft should work - with a few caveats.

Due to the insertion/removal of the DT fragments other node's state
change from 'disabled' <-> 'okay' and platform devices created or
removed. This can be handled either via overlays, or via special
casing it.
 
> 1) Avoiding phandle collisions between main tree and subtree (or
>   between subtrees).
> 
> I'm hopeful that this can be resolved just by establishing some
> conventions about the ranges of phandles to be used for various
> components.  I'd certainly be happy to add a directive to dtc which
> enforces allocation of phandles within a specified range.
> 

Really doubtful IMHO. That will impose yet more structure on the DT
syntax, and it will make it even more difficult for users.

We're talking about users that do understand the hardware, but can't
really grok linux kernel development.

DT is used a structured h/w definition and seems to work just
fine for these kind of users.

> 2) Resolving phandle references within a subtree
> 
> If we can handle (1) by convention, we don't need anything here, the
> references are fine as is.
> 
> (3) Resolving phandle references from the subtree to the main tree.
> 
> So, I think this can actually be avoided, at least in cases where what
> physical connections are available to the expansion module is well
> defined.  The main causes to have external references are interrupts
> and gpios.  Interrupts we handle by defining an interrupt specifier
> space for the interrupts available on the expansion
> socket/connector/bus/whatever.  In the master tree we then have
> something like:
> 
> ...
> 	expansion-socket@...X {
> 		expansion-id = "SlotA";
> 		interrupt-map = < /* map expansion irq specs to
> 				     board interrupt controllers */ >;
> 		interrupt-map-mask = < ... >;
> 		ranges = < /* map expansion local addresses to global
> 		              mmio */ >;
> 	};
> 
> The subtree for the expansion module gets attached as a subnode of
> this one.  It doesn't use explicit interrupt-parents but instead just
> uses the expansion local irq specifiers, letting the parent be the
> default which will bubble up to this socket node where the
> interrupt-map will send them to the right places.
> 
> I don't recall the gpio bindings off hand, but as I recall we based
> them off the irq tree bindings so we ought to be able to do the same
> thing for them.
> 

Please, don't try to do it this way. It is very debatable that we'll 
identify all the types that will need special handling.
For example for our cape use, we already have references that do not
follow this example.

A generic way to resolve references is what we need.

> Likewise, if there are several interchangeable expansion sockets that
> have some address bits hard wired to distinguish them, we can just use
> socket local mmio addresses within the subtree and the ranges property
> here will sort that out.
> 
> -- 
> David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
> david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
> 				| _way_ _around_!
> http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

--
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