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

Pantelis Antoniou
2012-11-13T08:09:37Z

Hi David,

On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:52:32AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/12/2012 05:10 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Oh yes. In fact if one was to use a single kernel image for beagleboard
>>> and beaglebone, for the cape to work for both, it is required for it's
>>> dtb to be compatible.
>>
>> Well, as Grant pointed out, it's not actually strictly necessary for the
>> .dtb to be compatible; only the .dts /need/ be compatible, and the .dtb
>> can be generated at run-time using dtc for example.
>
> So, actually, I think a whole bunch of problems with phandle
> resolution disappear if we don't try to define an overlay .dtb format,
> or at least treat it only as a very shortlived object. A more precise
> proposal below. Note that this works more or less equally well with
> either the original overlay approach or the graft/graft-bundle
> proposal I made elsewhere.
>
> 1) We annotate the base tree with some extra label information for
> nodes which overlays are likely to want to reference by phandle. e.g.
>
> beaglebone_pic: interrupt-controller@XXXXX {
> ...
> phandle,symbolic-name = "beaglebone_pic";
> };
>
> We could extend dtc to (optionally?) auto-generate those properties
> from its existing label syntax. Not sure if that's a good idea or
> not yet. In any case, we compile this augmented base tree to .dtb as
> normal and boot our kernel with it.
>

I'm fine with that. You can auto-generate when there's a label to a node.
The cape dt fragment will use the label name to reference a node.
More details below...

> 2) The information for the capes/modules/whatever is
> distributed/packaged as .dts, never .dtb. When userspace detects the
> new module (or the user explicitly tells it, if it's not probeable) it
> picks up the correct dts and runs it through dtc in a special mode.
> In this mode dtc takes the existing base tree (from /proc/device-tree,
> say) as well as the new dts. In this mode, dtc allocates phandles for
> the new tree fragment so as not to collide with anything from the
> supplied base tree (as well as avoiding internal conflicts,
> obviously). It also allows node references to the base tree by using
> those label annotations from (1) to match symbolic names to the
> phandle values in the base tree.
>

Not good to rely on userspace kicking off dtc and compiling from source.
Some capes/expansion boards might have your root fs device, for example
there is an eMMC cape coming up, while networking capes are common too.

However I have a compromise.

I agree that compiling from source can be an option for a runtime definable
cape, but for built-in capes we could do a bit better.

In particular, I don't see any particular need to have a DT fragment
reference anything that dependent of the runtime device tree. It should
be possible to compile the DT fragment in kernel, against the generated
flattened device tree, producing a flattened DT fragment with the phandles
already resolved.

So the sequence could be something like this:

$ dtc -O dtb -o am335x-bone.dtb -b 0 am335x-bone.dts -@ ${LAST_PHANDLE_FILE}
$ dtc -O dtbf -R am335x-bone.dtb -o weather-cape.dtb -b 0 weather-cape.dts -@ ${LAST_PHANDLE_FILE}
$ dtc -O dtbf -R am335x-bone.dtb -o geiger-cape.dtb -b 0 geiger-cape.dts -@ ${LAST_PHANDLE_FILE}

The ${LAST_PHANDLE_FILE} can be updated with the last phandle value generated.

Alternatively we could have a way to statically assign a phandle range
for well known capes. All the others will have to use the runtime compile
mechanism.
$ dtc -O dtb -o am335x-bone.dtb -b 0 am335x-bone.dts
$ dtc -O dtbf -R am335x-bone.dtb -o weather-cape.dtb -b 0 weather-cape.dts
$ dtc -O dtbf -R am335x-bone.dtb -o geiger-cape.dtb -b 0 geiger-cape.dts

With the cape dtses having a /phandle-range/ statement at the top.

This can work because the cape dts do not cross-reference each other, and
neither the boot dts references the capes.

That way we can use request_firmware() pretty early in the boot sequence
and get the DT fragment we need even before user-space starts and root fs
has mounted. request_firmware() can locate the fragments in the kernel
image before rootfs.

I don't know if this will cover all the cases Grant has in mind though.

So just to make sure I got it right, this could work for our case.

i2c2: i2c@4819c000 {
compatible = "ti,omap4-i2c";
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
ti,hwmods = "i2c3";
reg = <0x4819c000 0x1000>;
interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
interrupts = <30>;
status = "disabled";
};

And in the cape definition (when compiled with the special mode I describe
below)

/ {
plugin-bundle;
compatible = "cco,weather-cape";
version = <00A0>;

i2c2-graft = {
compatible = <dt,graft>;
graft-point = <&i2c2>;

#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;

/* Ambient light sensor */
tsl2550@39 {
compatible = "tsl,tsl2550";
reg = <0x39>;
};
};
};

DTC when compiling in the special fragment mode will pick up that
&i2c2 can not be resolved and lookup the phandle on the main dtb.
That way, even 'phandle,symbolic-name = "i2c2";' is redundant.

> 3) The resulting partial .dtb for the module is highly specific to the
> base tree (which if the base tree was generated at runtime by firmware
> could even be specific to a particular boot). But that's ok, because
> we just spit it into the kernel, absolute phandle values and all, then
> throw it away. Next time we need the module info, we recompile it
> again.
>
>> Of course, relying on .dts compatibility rather than .dtb compatibility
>> might negatively impact the complexity of an initrd environment if we
>> end up loading overlays from there...
>
> Well, it does mean we'd need dtc in the initrd. But dtc has no
> library dependencies except libc, so that really shouldn't be too
> bad. In return we entirely avoid inventing a new phandle resolution
> protocol.
>

Not every board boots with initrd; most embedded boards don't use it
at all. This way we make initrd a hard requirement.

It's best if we avoid it.

> --
> David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
> david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
> | _way_ _around_!
> http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

Regards

-- Pantelis