[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250710005821.GA94507-robh@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 19:58:21 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Raymond Mao <raymond.mao@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree-spec@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: devicetree: overlay-notes: recommend top-level
compatible in DTSO
+devicetree-spec (because linux-doc doesn't really care)
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 11:13:20AM -0700, Raymond Mao wrote:
> When managing multiple base device trees and overlays in a structured
> way (e.g. bundled in firmware or tools), it is helpful to identify the
> intended target base DT for each overlay, which can be done via a
> top-level compatible string in the overlay.
I think this should be more general and more specific at the same time.
You might not want to match on a top-level board/soc compatible, but
rather the compatible for a specific node. For example, you may have an
overlay for a cape, hat, etc. that applies to a connector node and that
connector node could be on any number of boards or even multiple
connectors on 1 board. That's all under development, but so far in those
cases we expect some sort of connector driver to apply the overlays. But
I think you could have the same issue of identifying which overlay files
are relevant. I don't think folks working on add-on boards have thought
that far ahead.
And since we don't know the target-path up front, it is just left blank
so far. It would be better if we expressed *something*. Perhaps
'target-compatible'? Something like that would work in your case I
think.
You'd have to be somewhat crazy, but you can bundle a bunch of
mutually-exclusive or unrelated overlays within a single overlay file. I
don't know that we want to prevent doing that. Someone might come up
with some not crazy reason to do that...
>
> This patch updates the document with a note and example for this
> practice.
>
> Signed-off-by: Raymond Mao <raymond.mao@...aro.org>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/overlay-notes.rst | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/overlay-notes.rst b/Documentation/devicetree/overlay-notes.rst
> index 35e79242af9a..30b142d1b2ee 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/overlay-notes.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/overlay-notes.rst
> @@ -103,6 +103,34 @@ The above bar.dtso example modified to use target path syntax is::
> ---- bar.dtso --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> +Overlay identification
> +----------------------
> +
> +When managing overlays dynamically or bundling multiple base device trees
> +and overlays in a single system (e.g., in firmware, initramfs, or user-space
> +tools), it becomes important to associate each overlay with its intended
> +target base DT.
> +
> +To support this, overlays should include the top-level compatible string
> +from its base DT.
The base has multiple compatible strings, so which one? Has to match on
any one or all of them?
> +This enables higher-level software or firmware to identify which base DT
> +an overlay is compatible with and apply it accordingly.
> +
> +Example usage::
> +
> + ---- bar.dtso - overlay with top-level compatible string -------------------
> + /dts-v1/;
> + /plugin/;
> + compatible = "corp,foo";
> +
> + ...
> + ---- bar.dtso --------------------------------------------------------------
> +
> +This top-level compatible string is not required by the kernel overlay
> +mechanism itself, but it is strongly recommended for managing overlays in
> +scalable systems.
> +
> +
> Overlay in-kernel API
> --------------------------------
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists