From: Stephen Neuendorffer <stephen.neuendorffer@xilinx.com>
To: "Matt Sealey" <matt@genesi-usa.com>, "Mitch Bradley" <wmb@firmworks.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
devicetree-discuss list <devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org>
Subject: RE: GPIO - marking individual pins (not) available in device tree
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:20:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081024222059.1835015F004D@mail181-va3.bigfish.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49024646.3050300@genesi-usa.com>
> One thing I had a crazy dream about was a GUI-based device tree
builder
> for platforms. Instead of editing them manually and passing them
> through the compiler, wouldn't it be fun to drag and drop system
> components (and build new ones) into something like a DirectX Filter
> Graph Builder (or the GStreamer one for that matter) or those GUI
> SQL database builders, so that you could build a tree and have it
> output all the craziness and connect phandles to range properties
> etc.
> =
> That way dropping a bunch of pins on a GPIO bank, or i2c devices
> on an i2c bus (I have a board here with an i2c bus with 8 devices
> on it, I suppose you could have more than 100 if you got your
> addresses right) and having a device tree that goes on for 8
> screens would not be so bad to maintain.
> =
> And no, I did NOT just volunteer to write one, I'm happy coding my
> device tree updates in Forth :)
> =
> --
> Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa.com>
> Genesi, Manager, Developer Relations
Why is this crazy? This is essentially what we do today with PowerPC
and Microblaze processors in Xilinx FPGAs. Even for ASIC SOCs, there
are several commercial 'connect-your-IP on the bus' tools that could (if
SOC providers thought it was important) generate the 'canonical' device
tree automagically.
I think the real question is: if part of the device tree describes
'hardware' (either in the SOC or on the board that, more or less,
doesn't change) and part represents 'hardware configuration' (e.g. My
board has my one-off hardware hanging off the gpio bank connected to the
40 pin header), then how do we separate the two so that the hardware can
be in a canonical form separate from the configuration. Or perhaps
there are even three device tree fragments: one provided by an SOC
provider, one by a board provider, and one by the user, which can all be
nicely separated once the great device tree update happens... :)
Steve
This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named r=
ecipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary=
, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intend=
ed recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attac=
hments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Stephen Neuendorffer <stephen.neuendorffer@xilinx.com>
To: Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa.com>, Mitch Bradley <wmb@firmworks.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
devicetree-discuss list <devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org>
Subject: RE: GPIO - marking individual pins (not) available in device tree
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:20:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081024222059.1835015F004D@mail181-va3.bigfish.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49024646.3050300@genesi-usa.com>
> One thing I had a crazy dream about was a GUI-based device tree
builder
> for platforms. Instead of editing them manually and passing them
> through the compiler, wouldn't it be fun to drag and drop system
> components (and build new ones) into something like a DirectX Filter
> Graph Builder (or the GStreamer one for that matter) or those GUI
> SQL database builders, so that you could build a tree and have it
> output all the craziness and connect phandles to range properties
> etc.
>
> That way dropping a bunch of pins on a GPIO bank, or i2c devices
> on an i2c bus (I have a board here with an i2c bus with 8 devices
> on it, I suppose you could have more than 100 if you got your
> addresses right) and having a device tree that goes on for 8
> screens would not be so bad to maintain.
>
> And no, I did NOT just volunteer to write one, I'm happy coding my
> device tree updates in Forth :)
>
> --
> Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa.com>
> Genesi, Manager, Developer Relations
Why is this crazy? This is essentially what we do today with PowerPC
and Microblaze processors in Xilinx FPGAs. Even for ASIC SOCs, there
are several commercial 'connect-your-IP on the bus' tools that could (if
SOC providers thought it was important) generate the 'canonical' device
tree automagically.
I think the real question is: if part of the device tree describes
'hardware' (either in the SOC or on the board that, more or less,
doesn't change) and part represents 'hardware configuration' (e.g. My
board has my one-off hardware hanging off the gpio bank connected to the
40 pin header), then how do we separate the two so that the hardware can
be in a canonical form separate from the configuration. Or perhaps
there are even three device tree fragments: one provided by an SOC
provider, one by a board provider, and one by the user, which can all be
nicely separated once the great device tree update happens... :)
Steve
This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-24 22:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-23 21:32 GPIO - marking individual pins (not) available in device tree Matt Sealey
2008-10-23 21:32 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-23 22:22 ` Mitch Bradley
2008-10-23 23:05 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-24 0:52 ` Mitch Bradley
2008-10-24 3:29 ` David Gibson
2008-10-24 3:29 ` David Gibson
2008-10-24 4:17 ` Mitch Bradley
2008-10-24 4:17 ` Mitch Bradley
2008-10-24 4:45 ` David Gibson
2008-10-24 4:45 ` David Gibson
2008-10-24 22:14 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-26 23:47 ` David Gibson
2008-10-27 15:40 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-27 18:34 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-27 18:56 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-27 20:10 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-27 20:10 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-27 21:56 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-27 21:56 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-27 23:12 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-27 23:12 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-27 23:40 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-28 0:47 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 1:11 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 1:11 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 2:37 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-28 16:53 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 16:53 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 17:39 ` Grant Likely
2008-10-28 19:46 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 19:46 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 0:15 ` David Gibson
2008-10-28 0:15 ` David Gibson
2008-10-28 0:51 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 1:50 ` David Gibson
2008-10-28 5:20 ` Grant Likely
2008-10-28 5:20 ` Grant Likely
2008-10-24 22:03 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-24 22:20 ` Stephen Neuendorffer [this message]
2008-10-24 22:20 ` Stephen Neuendorffer
2008-10-26 21:39 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-24 23:44 ` Mitch Bradley
2008-10-26 21:13 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-26 21:13 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-26 23:53 ` David Gibson
2008-10-27 16:12 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-27 16:12 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-27 16:35 ` Scott Wood
2008-10-27 16:35 ` Scott Wood
2008-10-27 17:05 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-27 17:25 ` Scott Wood
2008-10-27 17:49 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-27 17:54 ` Scott Wood
2008-10-28 0:38 ` David Gibson
2008-10-28 0:38 ` David Gibson
2008-10-28 0:34 ` David Gibson
2008-10-28 0:34 ` David Gibson
2008-10-24 4:58 ` David Gibson
2008-10-24 3:27 ` David Gibson
2008-10-24 3:27 ` David Gibson
2008-10-24 16:41 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-24 17:01 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-24 22:17 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-24 22:17 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-24 22:37 ` Anton Vorontsov
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-10-28 13:31 Konstantinos Margaritis
2008-10-28 14:11 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-28 14:11 ` Anton Vorontsov
2008-10-28 14:15 ` Grant Likely
2008-10-28 14:15 ` Grant Likely
2008-10-28 17:06 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 17:06 ` Matt Sealey
2008-10-28 17:32 ` Grant Likely
2008-10-28 23:37 ` David Gibson
2008-10-28 23:37 ` David Gibson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20081024222059.1835015F004D@mail181-va3.bigfish.com \
--to=stephen.neuendorffer@xilinx.com \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=matt@genesi-usa.com \
--cc=wmb@firmworks.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.