Re: [RFC] Device Tree Overlays Proposal (Was Re: capebus moving omap_devices to mach-omap2)

[Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>]

On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> Hey folks,
> 
> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
> suggestions greatly appreciated.

Interesting. This just came up internally at NVIDIA within the last
couple weeks, and was discussed on the U-Boot mailing list very recently
too:

http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-October/thread.html#138227
(it spills into the November archive too)

> For these cases it is proposed to implement an overlay feature for the
> so that the initial device tree data can be modified by userspace at

I don't know if you're maintaining this as a document and taking patches
to it, but if so:

"for the so" split across those two lines.

> Jane solves this problem by storing an FDT overlay for each cape in the
> root filesystem. When the kernel detects that a cape is installed it
> reads the cape's eeprom to identify it and uses request_firmware() to
> obtain the appropriate overlay. Userspace passes the overlay to the
> kernel in the normal way. If the cape doesn't have an eeprom, then the
> kernel will still use firmware_request(), but userspace needs to already
> know which cape is installed.

As mentioned by Pantelis, multiple versions of a board is also very
common. We already have the following .dts files in the kernel where
this applies, for the main board even:

arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra30-cardhu.dtsi
arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra30-cardhu-a02.dts
arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra30-cardhu-a04.dts

> Summary points:

>   - SHOULD reliably handle changes between different underlying overlays
>     (ie. what happens to existing .dtb overly files if the structure of
>     the dtb it is layered over changes. If not possible, then SHALL
>     detect when the base tree doesn't match and refuse to apply the
>     overlay.

Perhaps use (versioned) DT bindings to represent the interface between
the two .dts files? See the links to the U-Boot mailing list discussions
below?

> - What is the model for overlays?
>   - Can an overlay modify existing properties?
>   - Can an overlay add new properties to existing nodes?
>   - Can an overlay delete existing nodes/properties?

This proposal is very oriented at an overlay-based approach. I'm not
totally convinced that a pure overlay approach (as in how dtc does
overlayed DT nodes) will be flexible enough, but would love to be
persuaded. Again see below.

> It may be sufficient to solve it by making the phandle values less
> volatile. Right now dtc generates phandles linearly. Generated phandles
> could be overridden with explicit phandle properties, but it isn't a
> fantastic solution. Perhaps generating the phandle from a hash of the
> node name would be sufficient.

Node names don't have to be unique though right; perhaps hash the
path-name instead of the node-name? But then, why not just reference by
path name; similar to <{&/path/to/node}> rather than <&label>?

> This handles many of the use cases, but it assumes that an overlay is
> board specific. If it ever is required to support multiple base boards
> with a single overlay file then there is a problem. The .dtb overlays
> generated in this manor cannot handle different phandles or nodes that
> are in a different place. On the other hand, the overlay source files
> should have no problem being compiled for multiple targets.

s/manor/manner/

I do rather suspect this use-case is quite common. NVIDIA certainly has
a bunch of development boards with pluggable
PMIC/audio/WiFi/display/..., and I believe there's some ability to
re-use the pluggable components with a variety of base-boards.

Given people within NVIDIA started talking about this recently, I asked
them to enumerate all the boards we have that support pluggable
components, and how common it is that some boards support being plugged
into different main boards. I don't know when that enumeration will
complete (or even start) but hopefully I can provide some feedback on
how common the use-case is for us once it's done.

My earlier thoughts on how to support this included explicit
inter-board/-component connector objects in the .dts files that allow
"renaming" of GPIOs, I2C buses, regulators, etc.:

http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-October/138476.html
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-November/138925.html