Message-Id: <060132B1-BB52-4C7F-B8D3-82B49BE49BB7@antoniou-consulting.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:58:02 +0200
From:	Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>
To:	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Cc:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>, Jon Loeliger <jdl@....com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>,
	Mitch Bradley <wmb@...mworks.com>,
	Alan Tull <atull@...era.com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matt Porter <mporter@...com>,
	Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>,
	Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
	Joel A Fernandes <agnel.joel@...il.com>,
	Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
	Jason Kridner <jkridner@...gleboard.org>,
	Matt Ranostay <mranostay@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] OF: Introduce Device Tree resolve support.

Hi David,

On Jan 23, 2013, at 6:40 AM, David Gibson wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 01:06:09PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> On Jan 22, 2013, at 6:05 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:59:15PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>>> Hi David
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 21, 2013, at 6:48 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 09:31:09PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>>>>> Introduce support for dynamic device tree resolution.
>>>>>> Using it, it is possible to prepare a device tree that's
>>>>>> been loaded on runtime to be modified and inserted at the kernel
>>>>>> live tree.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> .../devicetree/dynamic-resolution-notes.txt        |  25 ++
>>>>>> drivers/of/Kconfig                                 |   9 +
>>>>>> drivers/of/Makefile                                |   1 +
>>>>>> drivers/of/resolver.c                              | 394 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> include/linux/of.h                                 |  17 +
>>>>>> 5 files changed, 446 insertions(+)
>>>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/dynamic-resolution-notes.txt
>>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/dynamic-resolution-notes.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/dynamic-resolution-notes.txt
>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 0000000..0b396c4
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/dynamic-resolution-notes.txt
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
>>>>>> +Device Tree Dynamic Resolver Notes
>>>>>> +----------------------------------
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +This document describes the implementation of the in-kernel
>>>>>> +Device Tree resolver, residing in drivers/of/resolver.c and is a
>>>>>> +companion document to Documentation/devicetree/dt-object-internal.txt[1]
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +How the resolver works
>>>>>> +----------------------
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +The resolver is given as an input an arbitrary tree compiled with the
>>>>>> +proper dtc option and having a /plugin/ tag. This generates the
>>>>>> +appropriate __fixups__ & __local_fixups__ nodes as described in [1].
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +In sequence the resolver works by the following steps:
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +1. Get the maximum device tree phandle value from the live tree + 1.
>>>>>> +2. Adjust all the local phandles of the tree to resolve by that amount.
>>>>>> +3. Using the __local__fixups__ node information adjust all local references
>>>>>> +   by the same amount.
>>>>>> +4. For each property in the __fixups__ node locate the node it references
>>>>>> +   in the live tree. This is the label used to tag the node.
>>>>>> +5. Retrieve the phandle of the target of the fixup.
>>>>>> +5. For each fixup in the property locate the node:property:offset location
>>>>>> +   and replace it with the phandle value.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hrm.  So, I'm really still not convinced by this approach.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	First, I think it's unwise to allow overlays to change
>>>>> essentially anything in the base tree, rather than having the base
>>>>> tree define sockets of some sort where things can be attached.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> One could say that the labels define the sockets. It's not just things
>>>> to be attached, properties might have to change, or something more complex,
>>>> as we've found out in practice.
>>> 
>>> Hrm.  I know a number of these have come up previously in that big
>>> thread, but can you summarise some of these cases here.  If things
>>> need modification in the base tree that still seems to me like the
>>> base tree hasn't properly described the socket arrangement (I realise
>>> that allowing such descriptions may require extensions to some of our
>>> device tree conventions).
>>> 
>> 
>> It would be pointless to number all the use-cases that Grant put in that
>> long document, but I can summarize the cases that we've seen on the bone.
>> 
>> * Addition of child device nodes to the ocp node, creates new platform
>> devices of various kind (audio/video/pwms/timers) - almost any kind of
>> platform device that the SoC supports. Removing the overlay unregisters
>> the devices (but precious few drivers support that cleanly ATM). Since
>> the capes don't support hotplug that's not a big deal.
> 
> Ok, that's just adding nodes, which is straightforward.
> 
>> * Addition of pinctrl configuration nodes.
> 
> Ok, do you know where I can look to see how the pinctrl stuff works?
> 

There's information about it in Documentation/pinctrl.txt, and there's the
source in drivers/pinctrl.

>> * Addition of i2c/spi etc device nodes and modification of the parent's
>> node status property to "okay",
> 
> Ok.  I'm assuming this is basically just to enable the bus controller
> which was previously disabled because it had nothing attached to it?
> 

Yes, but the configuration of the device might need to be altered. For
example the clock, or adding/removing some properties that affect the 
driver.

>> creates the bus platform device & registers
>> the devices on the bus. Slight complication with i2c client devices which
>> are not platform devices need special handling.
> 
> And this part is again just adding nodes.
> 
>> * Modification of configuration parameters of a disabled device and subsequent
>> enablement. 
> 
> What sorts of modification are necessary to the parameters?  Other
> than changing status = "disabled" of course.  This is the only case I
> see here which might be changing data other than the status property,
> which if it were the only one could reasonably be special cased, I
> think.

Some devices might not work reliably with a high clock value. Others
might need to add a flag that modifies the way the driver handles the
hardware attached to the cape (for instance whether an SDcard is 
removable or not) etc. It is all up to the person that designed the
hardware which is connected, so we can't really come up with a list of 
allowed changes.

> 
>>>> As far as the unwise part, a good deal of care has been taken so that 
>>>> people that don't use the overlay functionality have absolutely no
>>>> overhead, or anything modified in the way they use DT.
>>> 
>>> Yeah, that's not what I'm concerned about.  I'm concerned about hard
>>> to debug problems because some subtle change in the base tree or the
>>> overlay or both causes the overlay to alter something in the base tree
>>> it really shouldn't.
>> 
>> Define shouldn't. Let's say someone inserts a bogus overlay that makes the system
>> fail, or misbehave in some other manner. What is the different between 
>> using the overlay and inserting kernel module that fails in a
>> similar manner?
> 
> Hm, you do have a point there.
> 
> Another reason for a more constrained format did occur to me though -
> it opens the possibility for multiple interchangeable sockets on the
> same board.  e.g. we get the BeaglePlus or whatever which can take two
> capes simultaneously.  With the current scheme an identical cape would
> need different overlays for insertion in socket A and socket B because
> it would need different labels for all the fixups.

I see your point, and that's where the beauty of DT helps :)

There's nothing that forces you to have a single label per node, so the number
of labels a node can have is unlimited. 

As part of a convention laid down by the board maker, if one was to support a number
of capes the labels of the nodes must be known in advance.

For instance, let's take the case of beaglebone capes where they typically
hook into &ocp & &pinmux etc. The manufacturer can lay down a policy that
states the only allowable overlay targets, and make sure that every board
that support a given set of capes to label the nodes consistently.

What we are describing here, the device tree resolution & overlay though is not policy,
it is a mechanism. It's not by accident that there is no direct user-space way
to use the DT overlays, the access to it should come from a board/family specific
driver that knows and will enforce the policy.

> 
>> As far as supporting arbitrary overlays, that is not the case, and never will
>> be. Now since the beaglebone is for hobbyists too, we can't restrict what
>> a user can do in any way; but that person is free to do whatever he wants.
>> 
>>>>> 	Second, even allowing overlays to change anything, I don't see
>>>>> a lot of reason to do this kind of resolution within the kernel and
>>>>> with data stored in the dtb itself, rather than doing the resolution
>>>>> in userspace from an annotated overlay dts or dtb, then inserting the
>>>>> fully resolved product into the kernel.  In either case, the overlay
>>>>> needs to be constructed with pretty intimate knowledge of the base
>>>>> tree.
>>>> 
>>>> Fair enough, but that's one more thing of user-space crud to drag along, which
>>>> will get enabled pretty late in the boot sequence. Meaning a whole bunch of devices,
>>>> like consoles, and root filesystems on the devices that need an overlay to operate
>>>> won't work easily enough.
>>> 
>>> Hrm.  But doesn't your scheme already require userspace to identify
>>> the hardware and load the overlay?  So why is having it resolve the
>>> overlay significantly harder?
>> 
>> There is no user-space involved what so ever. The only place where
>> user-space might be involved is supplying the dtbo firmware image as a
>> result of the loader driver issuing request_firmware().  
> 
> Right.. and couldn't the request_firmware() involve processing the
> resolutions, rather than just grabbing the file.
> 

That's not possible AFAIKT. All that request_firmware() can do is hand you
a blob that you've requested.

>>> AFAICT devices wanted early can be handled in several possible ways
>>> without having the resolved in kernel: an initramfs is the most
>>> obvious, but for things you want really early, it should be possible
>>> to do the resolution from the platform's bootloader update tool - so
>>> the pre-resolved overlay gets bundled with the kernel/initrd/whatever
>>> to get fired up from the bootloader.
>> 
>> No. Just no. It is a support nightmare when dealing with the hobbyist market.
>> Something similar has been tried before. While I don't have an exact figure, 
>> having users tinker with any part of the bootloader/init sequence in order to 
>> add some new cape lead to an unacceptable number of RMAed boards, which
>> had absolutely nothing wrong with them, besides the fact that the person tinkering
>> with it couldn't get it booting after screwing it.
>> This wiped off any amount of profit for the board maker; possibly even made the
>> whole operation a loss.
> 
> Ok.  I certainly don't want to dismiss usability concerns. I was
> envisaging this pre-resolving process asn being part of the platform's
> equivalent of running the lilo / update-grub / whatever script.  So
> I'm trying to understand what's different about the platform's boot
> sequence it so much more fraught in this case.
> 

Don't get me started on the insanity of lilo / update-grub process :)
Let's just say there is no need to force anyone to deal with again, there's
absolutely no need to.

> The other thing I notice is that this sort of concern is exactly why I
> lean towards the idea of a more constrained "overlay" format where the
> base tree desribes what a socket can add / change, rather than
> allowing arbitrary alterations to the base tree.  With such
> constraints, it's going to be much harder to screw up the basic
> platform booting due to a bad overlay.  Obviously the cape won't work
> properly without correct device information, but you won't be able to
> clobber the basic device information for the board.
> 

I understand your concern, really. That's why the patches do not expose
any kind of policy management, they're only a low level mechanism that
a policy aware loader driver can use.

I feel that the label method is sufficiently generic, and easily
understood by both users & developers. Now as part of the policy of the
loader driver we can easily add policy constraints as to which 
device nodes are allowed as targets of the overlay. If need be, the loader
can use an extra verification pass.

> [snip]
>>>>> That said, I have some implementation comments below.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>> + * Find a subtree's maximum phandle value.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +static phandle __of_get_tree_max_phandle(struct device_node *node,
>>>>>> +		phandle max_phandle)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	struct device_node *child;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	if (node->phandle != 0 && node->phandle != OF_PHANDLE_ILLEGAL &&
>>>>>> +			node->phandle > max_phandle)
>>>>>> +		max_phandle = node->phandle;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	__for_each_child_of_node(node, child)
>>>>>> +		max_phandle = __of_get_tree_max_phandle(child, max_phandle);
>>>>> 
>>>>> Recursion is best avoided given the kernel's limited stack space.
>>>>> This is also trivial to implement non-recursively, using the allnext
>>>>> pointer.
>>>> 
>>>> The caller passes a tree that's not yet been inserted in the live
>>>> tree.
>>> 
>>> Um.. isn't this used to find the max phandle in the base tree, so how
>>> is it not inserted in the live tree yet?
>> 
>> We have a use case (for devices that must be inserted very early in the boot
>> process) that the overlay is stored in a part of the base tree, not in a
>> different dtbo file. Some phandle juggling there uses this function.
>> This patchset only uses it on the base tree.
> 
> Ok.  Nonetheless it's not hard to avoid a recursive approach here.

How can I find the maximum phandle value of a subtree without using recursion.
Note that the whole function is just 6 lines long.

> 
>>>> So there's no allnodes pointer yet. 
>>> 
>>> I would strongly suggest populating that in the subtree as you build
>>> it, then.  Except that I don't think it is a detached subtree in this
>>> case, though it is in some of the cases below.
>>> 
>>>> Care has been taken for the function
>>>> to not have excessive local variables. I would guess about 20-32 bytes for
>>>> the stack frame + the local variables, so with a 4K stack we would overflow at a 
>>>> nest level of 128, which has a pretty slim chance for a real system.
>>> 
>>> Hrm.  Recursion still makes me nervous.  I believe there are platforms
>>> that have a non-trivial lower-bound on stack usage per frame, even
>>> with few local variables.
>> 
>> How about having a recursion limit argument set to something sane
>> like 10?
> 
> Ugh.  It's really best just to avoid recursion in the kernel.
> 

It is not always possible, these are non-balanced tree structures after all.
Look at lib/btree.c btree_insert_level() function for example. It uses recursion
and uses a recursion level check.

>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	return max_phandle;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>> + * Find live tree's maximum phandle value.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +static phandle of_get_tree_max_phandle(void)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	struct device_node *node;
>>>>>> +	phandle phandle;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	/* get root node */
>>>>>> +	node = of_find_node_by_path("/");
>>>>>> +	if (node == NULL)
>>>>>> +		return OF_PHANDLE_ILLEGAL;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	/* now search recursively */
>>>>>> +	read_lock(&devtree_lock);
>>>>>> +	phandle = __of_get_tree_max_phandle(node, 0);
>>>>>> +	read_unlock(&devtree_lock);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	of_node_put(node);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	return phandle;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>> + * Adjust a subtree's phandle values by a given delta.
>>>>>> + * Makes sure not to just adjust the device node's phandle value,
>>>>>> + * but modify the phandle properties values as well.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +static void __of_adjust_tree_phandles(struct device_node *node,
>>>>>> +		int phandle_delta)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	struct device_node *child;
>>>>>> +	struct property *prop;
>>>>>> +	phandle phandle;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	/* first adjust the node's phandle direct value */
>>>>>> +	if (node->phandle != 0 && node->phandle != OF_PHANDLE_ILLEGAL)
>>>>>> +		node->phandle += phandle_delta;
>>>>> 
>>>>> You need to have some kind of check for overflow here, or the adjusted
>>>>> phandle could be one of the illegal values (0 or -1) - or wrap around
>>>>> and colllide with existing phandle values in the base tree.  dtc
>>>>> (currently) allocates phandles from the bottom, but there's no
>>>>> guarantee that a base tree will only have low phandle values - it only
>>>>> takes one node with phandle set to 0xfffffffe in the base tree to have
>>>>> this function make a mess of things.
>>>> 
>>>> Correct, I'll take care of handling the overflow.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> +	/* now adjust phandle & linux,phandle values */
>>>>>> +	for_each_property_of_node(node, prop) {
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		/* only look for these two */
>>>>>> +		if (of_prop_cmp(prop->name, "phandle") != 0 &&
>>>>>> +		    of_prop_cmp(prop->name, "linux,phandle") != 0)
>>>>>> +			continue;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		/* must be big enough */
>>>>>> +		if (prop->length < 4)
>>>>>> +			continue;
>>>>> 
>>>>> If prop->length != 4 (including > 4) something is pretty wrong, and
>>>>> you should probably bail with an error message.
>>>> 
>>>> OK, just playing it safe here.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		/* read phandle value */
>>>>>> +		phandle = be32_to_cpu(*(uint32_t *)prop->value);
>>>>>> +		if (phandle == OF_PHANDLE_ILLEGAL)	/* unresolved */
>>>>>> +			continue;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		/* adjust */
>>>>>> +		*(uint32_t *)prop->value = cpu_to_be32(node->phandle);
>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	/* now do the children recursively */
>>>>>> +	__for_each_child_of_node(node, child)
>>>>>> +		__of_adjust_tree_phandles(child, phandle_delta);
>>>>> 
>>>>> Again, recursion is not a good idea.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> No other way to handle it. This is not a node that's in the live
>>>> tree yet.
>>> 
>>> There's always another way to handle it, although it may be less
>>> elegant.  In this case it should be easy though - populate the allnext
>>> pointers when you unflatten the tree.  Or, have the offset applied
>>> when you actually apply the overlay rather than as a separate pass.
>> 
>> Previous comment applies here too. Recursion limit counter?
> 
> Is a nasty band-aid, when it's really not that hard to avoid recursion
> altogether.
> 
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>> + * Adjust the local phandle references by the given phandle delta.
>>>>>> + * Assumes the existances of a __local_fixups__ node at the root
>>>>>> + * of the tree. Does not take any devtree locks so make sure you
>>>>>> + * call this on a tree which is at the detached state.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +static int __of_adjust_tree_phandle_references(struct device_node *node,
>>>>>> +		int phandle_delta)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	phandle phandle;
>>>>>> +	struct device_node *refnode, *child;
>>>>>> +	struct property *rprop, *sprop;
>>>>>> +	char *propval, *propcur, *propend, *nodestr, *propstr, *s;
>>>>>> +	int offset, propcurlen;
>>>>>> +	int err;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	/* locate the symbols & fixups nodes on resolve */
>>>>>> +	__for_each_child_of_node(node, child)
>>>>>> +		if (of_node_cmp(child->name, "__local_fixups__") == 0)
>>>>>> +			break;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	/* no local fixups */
>>>>>> +	if (child == NULL)
>>>>>> +		return 0;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	/* find the local fixups property */
>>>>>> +	for_each_property_of_node(child, rprop) {
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		/* skip properties added automatically */
>>>>>> +		if (of_prop_cmp(rprop->name, "name") == 0)
>>>>>> +			continue;
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ok, so you're interpreting any property except name in the
>>>>> __local_fixups__ node in exactly the same way?  That's a bit strange.
>>>>> Why not just have a single property rather than a node's worth in that
>>>>> case.
>>>> 
>>>> It saves space. For example you might have to resolve a label reference
>>>> more than once. So instead of doing:
>>>> 
>>>> 	label = "/foo:bar:0";
>>>> 	label = "/bar:foo:4";
>>>> 
>>>> You can do this:
>>>> 
>>>> 	label = "/foo:bar:0", "/bar/foo:4";
>>> 
>>> Um.. you seem to have read me as saying the exact opposite of what I
>>> said.  I'm _suggesting_ that you use:
>>> 	__local_fixups__ = "/foo:bar:0", "/bar/foo:4";
>>> Since the 'label' name has no meaning in the case of local fixups.
>> 
>> Err, I misread that.
>> 
>> At first I tried to do it the way you suggested but run into the following
>> problem: The DTC enforces the properties to always precede the child nodes.
>> I wasn't able to find a way to insert the __local_fixups__ property easily.
>> Perhaps you can suggest where would you put it? 
> 
> Ah, ok.  I haven't looked at your dtc patch in any detail yet, since I
> wanted to review the concept first, through these patches.
> 
> So the basic answer is that you should add the extra annotations for
> overlays onto the live tree that dtc maintains before flatenning it,
> rather than doing it as part of the flattening process.  On the live
> tree you can add properties and subnodes in whatever order.  It also
> means that you'll see the right overlay annotations for all dtc output
> formats.

Already do (partly). The annotations are added before the flattening process.
But I don't add the properties at that point. My life is complicated by
the fact that I have to be extra careful to not affect non-uses of overlays.

Sigh.

> 
>>>>>> +		/* make a copy */
>>>>>> +		propval = kmalloc(rprop->length, GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>> +		if (propval == NULL) {
>>>>>> +			pr_err("%s: Could not copy value of '%s'\n",
>>>>>> +					__func__, rprop->name);
>>>>>> +			return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>> +		}
>>>>>> +		memcpy(propval, rprop->value, rprop->length);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		propend = propval + rprop->length;
>>>>>> +		for (propcur = propval; propcur < propend;
>>>>>> +				propcur += propcurlen + 1) {
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +			propcurlen = strlen(propcur);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +			nodestr = propcur;
>>>>>> +			s = strchr(propcur, ':');
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, using strings with separators like this doesn't sit will with
>>>>> existing device tree practice.  More similar to existing things would
>>>>> have NUL separators and the integer values in binary, rather than
>>>>> text (and yes, there is precedent for mixed string and integer content
>>>>> in properties).
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hmm, I guess it can be done, but I wouldn't expect any space savings.
>>> 
>>> I'm not after space savings, just least-surprise by matching existing
>>> common practices.
>> 
>> Maybe. You also lose the ability to print the contents of the node and
>> easily inspect. It's your call really, I don't mind that much.
> 
> Hm, ok I'll give it some thought.  There are bigger things I'd like to
> be convinced on before worrying too much about details like this :).

You worry too much! :)

> 
> -- 
> 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