[Ksummit-2013-discuss] ARM topic: Is DT on ARM the solution, or is there something better?

[linux@roeck-us.net (Guenter Roeck)]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:35:47PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 09:49:22AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 05:31:25PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com> wrote:
> > > >On 21/10/13 23:51, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > >> In my opinion, not being able to describe behavior (or what people
> > > >refer
> > > >> to as "describe how the hardware is used") is a severe limitation of
> > > >> devicetree usage in Linux. That is not a devicetree limitation per
> > > >se,
> > > >> though, it is simply a matter of choice (or, in some cases, the
> > > >ability
> > > >> of those arguing for new bindings to sell those bindings as "hardware
> > > >> description").
> > > >
> > > >I agree this is a real problem, and I think it hinders upstream
> > > >submission, since platform data was permitted to describe behaviour as
> > > >well as describe the hardware, and platform data is being replaced with
> > > >DT which is only permitted to describe the hardware. How then should we
> > > >specify the behaviour to the kernel?
> > > >
> > > >I've already mentioned specific examples of this on the "Clock DT
> > > >bindings" thread, and would be very interested if anybody has thoughts
> > > >about it:
> > > >http://lkml.kernel.org/r/520E1DF5.4030409 at imgtec.com
> > > 
> > > We have run into a kind of similar issue with IIO. We are interested in describing sensors
> > >  adcs,DACs etc and providing both userspace access and in kernel access to other drivers.
> > > 
> > >  Lots of sensors are used for different
> > >  purposes on different devices. Simple example is free fall detection vs vibration
> > >  analysis vs input for an accelerometer. User space expects data from different
> > >  subsystems. We handle that via 'bridge' drivers.  So need a way to specify which
> > >  bridge driver cares about which channels.
> > > It is not always 'wiring' but it usually is dictated by the product implementation. 
> > > Some aspects of this have been discussed but they only cover the is an ADC wired to an
> > >  accelerometer case rather than the using the same physical hardware for on or more
> > >  unrelated purpose.
> > > Perhaps this case could be pushed into user space but then we just have another board
> > >  specific bit of code...
> > > 
> > > Just to add that for IIO device tree mostly works pretty well.
> > 
> > Yes, it does, only the iio-hwmon bridge is one of those cases where we are now
> > told that "this describes use, not the hardware itself". But how is one supposed
> > to describe that an ADC on a board is used as voltage sensor ? Does that mean one
> > would have to have a dedicated voltage sensor (or current sensor, for that
> > matter) to ensure that the use case is clear ?
> 
> I'm not sure I understand correctly, but it seems to me like this isn't
> actually about behaviour at all. Having something like:
> 
> 	adc: adc {
> 		...
> 	};
> 
> 	sensor {
> 		adc = <&adc>;
> 	};
> 
> sounds like an appropriate description of the hardware. Well, I guess it

One would think so.

> doesn't quite accurately describe the hardware if one considers the ADC
> to actually be the sensor, in which case, yeah, this actually describes
> what the ADC is used for.
> 
... but then there is this point of view. Thinking about it, much of
a hardware description can be seen as "use case", at least when it comes
to gpio pins or adc channels.

> But on the other hand we do the same with other "resources". GPIOs for
> example are rather useless if you don't associate them with specific
> functionality. And we actually do that quite often. They are used in
> properties such as:
> 
> 	foo {
> 		...
> 		enable-gpios = <&gpio 42 0>;
> 		...
> 	};
> 
> I don't see how that is different to the ADC/sensor example above.
> Perhaps there's no real physical device that is the sensor, but if we
> can't even represent simple yet essential things like that in DT, then
> we definitely need something better.
> 
I don't think the issue is "can". After all, the restriction that DT shall only
describe HW and not its use is purely arbitrary.

> We do pretty much the same thing with regulators. We can have fixed
> regulators that control a GPIO, yet there's no physical device that one
> could associate with such regulators either.
> 
> > Another example is my recent attempt to add dt support to gpio based connectors.
> > Even though a connector is as much hardware as it can get (or at least one
> > should think so), that was rejected because it isn't generic enough and,
> > after all, it describes the _use_ of gpio pins which apparently is already
> > borderline. So now I have my own out of tree driver (where I can add as many
> > bindings and as much functionality as I want and see fit, so I am not too
> > unhappy about that).
> 
> That's odd. This sounds exactly like a variant of the above. Would you
> mind posting the binding (or a usage example here)? I'd be interested to
> understand why it would be inappropriate.
> 

Patch 4 and 5 of https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/30/23.

The bindings I currently use are actually a bit more complex.
Here is an example.

        pic1 {
            compatible = "jnpr,pic-connector";
            presence-detect-gpios = <&gpio20 36 0x10013>;
            request-button-gpios = <&gpio20 38 0x10013>;
            power-enable-gpios = <&gpio20 42 0x0>;
            power-status-gpios = <&gpio20 39 0x3>;
            reset-gpios = <&gpio20 41 0x10000>;
            power-enable-timeout = <2000>;
            debounce-interval = <1>;
            led-green = <&pic1_green>;
            led-red = <&pic1_red>;

            i2c-bus {
                #address-cells = <1>;
                #size-cells = <0>;

                i2c-parent = <&pic1i2c>;

                eeprom at 55 {
                    compatible = "atmel,24c02";
                    reg = <0x55>;
                    ideeprom;
                };
            };
        };

[ Note this is preliminary, and I expect some of the bindings to change.
  Also, I have no plan to even try to get this code upstream ;) ]

> > That matches Thierry's earlier comments - one is now _forced_ to maintain
> > out-of-tree code simply because DT bindings are either unacceptable, not generic
> > enough, or not stable enough to be accepted into the upstream kernel.
> > 
> > So far I have been able to work around that, but I seriously consider dropping
> > DT use entirely and moving back to platform data ...
> 
> I've actually been toying with that idea myself. Unfortunately it's very
> difficult to do once you run on a platform that's completely moved to DT
> because you actually have to manually search the DT in order to find any
> references that you need.
> 
Yes, I know.

> > not the very least because DT isn't supported on x86 and I have to deal with
> > that situation as well (and, no, ACPI doesn't solve my problems there either).
> 
> Actually DT is supported very well on x86. There's at least one platform
> in mainline that uses it (arch/x86/platform/ce4100/falconfalls.dts) and
> I've ported a platform that I worked on in the past to use DT on x86 as
> well.
> 
But presumably that was DT only, or was it a system that needs to use
DT on top of ACPI ? If so, I would be very interested in that experience,
especially if you had any issues to get it working.

Thanks,
Guenter