Message-ID: <CAPM=9tw=3yGQE3_G+=ian-+iV-OCRatbFc-stoMczmXeM2Ko+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Aug 2015 06:59:36 +1000
From:	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
To:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
Cc:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] drm/vc4: Add devicetree bindings for VC4.

On 27 August 2015 at 00:30, Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Thierry Reding
> <thierry.reding@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 01:52:29PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 04:42:18PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com> wrote:
>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net> wrote:
>>> > >> Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> writes:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> On 08/12/2015 06:56 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> This one definitely needs a patch description, since someone might not
>>> > >>> know what a VC4 is, and "git log" won't show the text from the binding
>>> > >>> doc itself. I'd suggest adding the initial paragraph of the binding doc
>>> > >>> as the patch description, or more.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/brcm,bcm-vc4.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/brcm,bcm-vc4.txt
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> +- hvss:             List of references to HVS video scalers
>>> > >>>> +- encoders: List of references to output encoders (HDMI, SDTV)
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Would it make sense to make all those nodes child node of the vc4
>>> > >>> object. That way, there's no need to have these lists of objects; they
>>> > >>> can be automatically built up as the DT is enumerated. I know that e.g.
>>> > >>> the NVIDIA Tegra host1x binding works this way, and I think it may have
>>> > >>> been inspired by other similar cases.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I've looked at tegra, and the component system used by msm appears to be
>>> > >> nicer than it.  To follow tegra's model, it looks like I need to build
>>> > >> this extra bus thing corresponding to host1x that is effectively the
>>> > >> drivers/base/component.c code, so that I can get at vc4's structure from
>>> > >> the component drivers.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> Of course, this is only appropriate if the HW modules really are
>>> > >>> logically children of the VC4 HW module. Perhaps they aren't. If they
>>> > >>> aren't though, I wonder what this "vc4" module actually represents in HW?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> It's the subsystem, same as we use a subsystem node for msm, sti,
>>> > >> rockchip, imx, and exynos.  This appears to be the common model of how
>>> > >> the collection of graphics-related components is represented in the DT.
>>> > >
>>> > > I think most of these bindings are wrong. They are grouped together
>>> > > because that is what DRM wants not because that reflects the h/w. So
>>> > > convince me this is one block, not that it is what other people do.
>>> >
>>> > I think, when it comes to more complex driver subsystems (like drm in
>>> > particular) we have a bit of mismatch between how things look from the
>>> > "pure hw ignoring sw" perspective, and the "how sw and in particular
>>> > userspace expects things" perspective.  Maybe it is less a problem in
>>> > other subsystems, where bindings map to things that are only visible
>>> > in the kernel, or well defined devices like uart or sata controller.
>>> > But when given the choice, I'm going to err on the side of not
>>> > confusing userspace and the large software stack that sits above
>>> > drm/kms, over dt purity.
>>> >
>>> > Maybe it would be nice to have a sort of dt overlay that adds the bits
>>> > needed to tie together hw blocks that should be assembled into a
>>> > single logical device for linux and userspace (but maybe not some
>>> > other hypothetical operating system).  But so far that doesn't exist.
>>> > All we have is a hammer (devicetree), everything looks like a nail.
>>> > End result is we end up adding some things in the bindings which
>>> > aren't purely about the hw.  Until someone invents a screwdriver, I'm
>>> > not sure what else to do.  In the end, other hypothetical OS is free
>>> > to ignore those extra fields in the bindings if it doesn't need them.
>>> > So meh?
>>>
>>> I thought we agreed a while back that these kind of "pull everything for
>>> the logical device together" dt nodes which just have piles of phandles
>>> are totally accepted? At least that's the point behind the component
>>> helpers, and Eric even suggested to create dt-specific component helpers
>>> to cut down a bit on the usual boilerplate. dt maintainers are also fine
>>> with this approach afaik. From my understanding tegra with the host1x bus
>>> really is the odd one out and not the norm.
>>
>> I agree that in many aspects Tegra is somewhat special. But the same
>> principles that the host1x infrastructure uses could be implemented in a
>> similar way for other DRM drivers. You can easily collect information
>> about subdevices by walking the device tree and matching on known
>> compatible strings. And you can also instantiate the top-level device
>> from driver code rather than have it in DT. It should still be possible
>> to make this work without an artificial device node in DT. The component
>> and master infrastructure is largely orthogonal to that, and as far as I
>> remember the only blocker is the need for a top-level device. I wonder
>> if perhaps this could be made to work by binding the master to the top-
>> level SoC device.
>>
>> Obviously adding the node in DT is easier, but to my knowledge easy has
>> never been a good excuse for mangling DT. Perhaps that's different these
>> days...
>
> I agree we should avoid the virtual node if possible. It is certainly
> possible as I started out with one and removed it. At least in my
> case, it essentially required the drm_device and crtc to be a single
> driver rather than 2 components. However, I'm more concerned that we
> are consistent from platform to platform where it makes sense than
> whether we have a somewhat questionable node or not.
>
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2013-July/041159.html

So can we at least have some continuity of decision making,
bikeshedding this every time we submit a driver isn't giving me any
hope going forward.

Dave.
--
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