Message-ID: <54E61200.4010002@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:40:32 -0800
From:	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:	Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>
CC:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Matt Porter <matt.porter@...aro.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] of: DT quirks infrastructure

On 2/19/2015 6:41 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Frank,
> 
>> On Feb 19, 2015, at 04:08 , Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/18/2015 6:59 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>> Implement a method of applying DT quirks early in the boot sequence.
>>>
>>> A DT quirk is a subtree of the boot DT that can be applied to
>>> a target in the base DT resulting in a modification of the live
>>> tree. The format of the quirk nodes is that of a device tree overlay.
>>
>> The use of the word "quirk" is a different mental model for me than what
>> this patch series appears to be addressing.  I would suggest totally
>> removing the word "quirk" from this proposal to avoid confusing the
>> mental models of future generations of kernel folks.
>>
> 
> Naming things is hard to do. Suggestions?

You are inviting me to bikeshed.  I'll leave that to you.

> 
>> What this patch series seems to be proposing is a method to apply DT
>> overlays as soon as unflatten_device_tree() completes.  In other words,
>> making the device tree a dynamic object, that is partially defined by
>> the kernel during boot.  Well, to be fair, the kernel chooses among
>> several possible alternatives encoded in the DT blob.  So the device
>> tree is no longer a static object that describes the hardware of the
>> system.  It may not sound like a big deal, but it seems to me to be
>> a fundamental shift in what the device tree blob is.  Something that
>> should be thought about carefully and not just applied as a patch to
>> solve a point problem.
>>
> 
> There is a fundamental shift going on about what hardware is. It is nowhere
> as static as it used to be. It is time for the kernel to keep up.

Run time overlays do that.

The problem you seem to be dealing with here is that you want a single
DT blob that can be installed on many different _physical_ boards.


> 
>> The stated use of this proposal is to create dynamic DT blobs that can
>> describe many similar variants of a given system instead of creating
>> unique DT blobs for each different system.
>>
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> I obviously have not thought through the architectural implications yet,
>> but just a quick example.  One of the issues we have been trying to fix
>> is device tree validation.  The not yet existent (except as a few proof
>> of concept attempts) validator would need to validate a device tree
>> for each dynamic variant.  Probably not a big deal, but an example of
>> the ripple effects this conceptual change implies.
>>
> 
> I don’t see what the big problem with the validator is. The ‘quirk’
> are easily identified by the presence of the __overlay__ nodes and
> the validator can apply each overlay and perform the validation check 
> at each resultant tree.

I said "not a big deal".  I was trying to make people think about the
bigger picture.  Defending that this is a non-issue for the validator
is totally missing my point.  Step back and think architecturally
about the big picture.  I do _not_ know if this is a problem, but
they will be ripples from this proposal.

>  
>> A second function that this patch is proposing is a method to enable
>> or disable devices via command line options.  If I understand
>> correctly, this is meant to solve a problem with run time overlays
>> that require disabling a device previously enabled by the DT blob.
>> If so, it seems like it could easily be implemented in a simpler
>> generic way than in the board specific code in this patch series.
>>
> 
> Disabling a device is the most common case, but other options are desired
> too. For instance changing OPPs by a command line option, etc.

The device tree is supposed to describe what the hardware is.  Why would
you want a command line option to change what OPPs are possible for the
hardware?

> 
>> I share the concerns that Mark Rutland has expressed in his comments
>> about this series.
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>> I have read through the patches and will have comments on the code
>> later if this proposal is seen as a good idea.
>>
> 
> OK
> 
>> -Frank
> 
> Regards
> 
> — Pantelis
> 
> 

--
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