Message-ID: <CANk1AXQ0L4Uzu_KV9fKeVZZFOPQhQ6uq6y+32=bVXRz+iEngLw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:33:49 -0600
From:   Alan Tull <atull@...nel.org>
To:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>,
        Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] of: Add whitelist

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/17 11:11, Alan Tull wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/27/17 15:58, Alan Tull wrote:
>>>>> Here's a proposal for a whitelist to lock down the dynamic device tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> For an overlay to be accepted, all of its targets are required to be
>>>>> on a target node whitelist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently the only way I have to get on the whitelist is calling a
>>>>> function to add a node.  That works for fpga regions, but I think
>>>>> other uses will need a way of having adding specific nodes from the
>>>>> base device tree, such as by adding a property like 'allow-overlay;'
>>>>> or 'allow-overlay = "okay";' If that is acceptable, I could use some
>>>>> advice on where that particular code should go.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan Tull (2):
>>>>>   of: overlay: add whitelist
>>>>>   fpga: of region: add of-fpga-region to whitelist
>>>>>
>>>>>  drivers/fpga/of-fpga-region.c |  9 ++++++
>>>>>  drivers/of/overlay.c          | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  include/linux/of.h            | 12 +++++++
>>>>>  3 files changed, 94 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The plan was to use connectors to restrict where an overlay could be applied.
>>>> I would prefer not to have multiple methods for accomplishing the same thing
>>>> unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
>>>
>>> Connector nodes need a mechanism to enable themselves, too. I don't
>>> think connector nodes are going to solve every usecase.
>>>
>>> Rob
>>
>> The two methods I'm suggesting are intended to handle different cases.
>>   There will exist some drivers that by their nature will want every
>> instance to be enabled for overlays, such as fpga regions.  The other
>> case is where drivers could support overlays but that's not the
>> widespread use for them.  So no need to enable every instance of that
>> driver for overlays.
>
> I understand what the paragraph, to this point, means.  But I had to
> read it several times to understand it because the way the concept is
> phrased clashed with my mental model.

Hi Frank,

I see where my explanation is confusing things.  I was talking about
two methods for marking a node as being a valid target for an overlay
(use a function or add a DT property).  I'll drop the idea of using a
DT property to enable a node for overlays and only focus on my
proposal of a function to enable nodes.

>
> The device node is not an instance of a driver, which is why I was
> getting confused.  (Yes, I do understand that the paragraph is talking
> about multiple device nodes that are bound to the same driver, but
> my mental model is tied to the device node, not to the driver.)
>
> If each of the device nodes in question is a connector, then each of
> the nodes will bind to a connector driver, based on the value of the
> compatible property.  (This is of course a theoretical assumption on
> my part since the connectors are not yet implemented.)
>
> If the connector node is an fpga, or an fpga region (I may be getting
> my terminology wrong here - please correct as needed) then an fpga
> overlay could be applied to the node.

We're still pre-connector currently, but yes I want to mark FPGA
regions as being valid targets.  Then I can use Pantelis' configfs
interface to apply overlays while leaving the rest of the DT locked
down.  That's the FPGA use of this patch in the pre-connector era of
things.

>
> If I understand what you are saying, there will be some fpga connector
> nodes for which the usage at a given moment might be programmed to
> function in a manner that will not be described by an overlay, but
> at a different moment in time may be programmed in a way that needs
> to be described by an overlay.  So there may be some times that it
> is valid to apply an overlay to the connector node and times that
> it is not valid to apply an overlay to the connector node.

I think connectors would likely always be valid targets (but I could
be wrong) and other nodes would not be valid targets.  The DT needs a
way to mark some nodes as valid targets, currently it doesn't have a
way of doing that.  Every connector driver's probe could use this code
to mark itself as a valid target.

>
> Is my understanding correct, or am I still confused?

Hope that helps, sorry for the muddled explanation earlier.

Alan

>
> -Frank
>
>> In that case the DT property provides some
>> granularity, only enabling overlays for specific instances of that
>> driver, leaving the rest of the DT locked down.>
>> If we only want one method, I would choose having the DT property only
>> and not exporting the functions.  Users would have to add the property
>> for every FPGA region but that's not really painful.  This would have
>> the benefit of still keeping the DT locked down unless someone
>> specifically wanted to enable some regions for overlays for their
>> particular use.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists