Message-ID: <CAMuHMdV+sUZpMtbCtWqJMiL_JC_nFEJcFDOoZJZPhhzhY8zQJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:52:44 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: Ayush Singh <ayush@...gleboard.org>, Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Andrew Davis <afd@...com>, 
	Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>, 
	Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	Jason Kridner <jkridner@...il.com>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree-compiler@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: Device tree representation of (hotplug) connectors: discussion at ELCE

Hi David,

On Tue, 30 Sept 2025 at 06:34, David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 10:33:50PM +0530, Ayush Singh wrote:
> > On 9/24/25 09:41, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 23 Sept 2025 at 11:49, Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 18:09:13 +1000
> > > > > David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> > > > > > Ah, right.  To be clear: we absolutely don't want multiple addons
> > > > > > altering the same nodes.  But I think we could do that in ways other
> > > > > > than putting everything under a connector.  This is exactly why I
> > > > > > think we should think this through as an end-to-end problem, rather
> > > > > > trying to do it as a tweak to the existing (crap) overlay system.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, if we're thinking of this as an entirely new way of updating the
> > > > > > base dt - not "an overlay" - we can decide on the rules to ensure that
> > > > > > addition and removal is sane.  Two obvious ones I think we should
> > > > > > definitely have are:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a) Addons can only add completely new nodes, never modify existing
> > > > > >     ones.  This means that whatever addons are present at runtime,
> > > > > >     every node has a single well defined owner (either base board or
> > > > > >     addon).
> > > > > In this rule I suppose that "never modify existing ones" should be understood
> > > > > as "never modify, add or remove properties in existing ones". Because, of course
> > > > > adding a full node in a existing one is allowed (rule b).
> > > > What if the add-on board contains a provider for the base board.
> > > > E.g. the connector has a clock input, fed by an optional clock generator
> > > > on the add-on board.  Hooking that into the system requires modifying
> > > > a clocks property in the base board, cfr. [1].
> > > > Or is there some other solution?
> > > Hmm.  My first inclination would be that this case is not in scope for
> > > the protocol we're trying to design now.  If the widget provides
> > > things to the base board as well as the other way around, it's no
> > > longer an "addon" for the purposes of this spec.
> > >
> > > But it's possible I've underestimated how common / useful such a case
> > > is.
> > >
> > > Note that I'd expect the existing overlay mechanism to still be
> > > around.  It may be ugly and not very well thought out, but its
> > > drawbacks are much less severe if you're not dealing with hot unplug.
> >
> > Well, while that was not an initial use-case in my mind, external clock
> > inputs are a valid use-case when talking about connectors for board headers
> > specifically (e.g. pocketbeagle connector).
>
> I guess I'm not familiar enough with modern embedded hardware.  I'm
> having a hard time wrapping my head around what's going on here.  If
> the external clock input is optional (hence under a connector), how is
> anything on the base board dependent on it?  If nothing on the base
> board is dependent, why do we need to modify its properties to
> represent it?
>
> Is this a design flaw in the clocks binding?

In my example, the external clock input is indeed optional, and not
used by the base board itself.  Still, it is a clock input to the SoC,
and may be used as a reference clock when an add-on board is connected
that needs to use the exact clock frequency of that reference clock.

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.17/source/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/white-hawk-ard-audio-da7212.dtso
AUDIO_CLKIN_V is the optional clock input to the SoC.
GP1_25/SL_SW2_V/TPU is the reference clock (actually it is not
generated on the add-on board, but by a PWM controller on the base
board, but it could just be a crystal oscillator on the add-on board
instead)

I hope this makes it clearer.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Powered by blists - more mailing lists