* Re: "compatible" and "model" properties in .dts for ARC boards [not found] <1446749422.3151.29.camel@synopsys.com> @ 2015-11-06 4:45 ` Vineet Gupta 2015-11-06 8:59 ` Arnd Bergmann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Vineet Gupta @ 2015-11-06 4:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexey Brodkin Cc: linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, jogo@openwrt.org, lkml, Arnd Bergmann, Rob Herring +CC lkml,Arnd, Rob On Friday 06 November 2015 12:20 AM, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > Hi Vineet, > > During OpenWRT upsreaming process one interesting topic was raised. > See in the middle of https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2015-November/036959.html > > In Device Tree descriptions for our boards we don't use "model" property > even though it is a required one as specified by ePAPR, see > http://free-electrons.com/~thomas/pub/Power_ePAPR_APPROVED_v1.0.pdf, > page 39 "Table 3-1 Root node properties". > > Instead we put 2 items in "compatible" property. > > For example: > ------------------->8---------------- > compatible = "snps,axs101", "snps,arc-sdp"; > ------------------->8---------------- > > And from ePAPR standpoint it makes sense to split contents of that "compatible" > property in 2: > ------------------->8---------------- > compatible = "snps,arc-sdp"; > model = "snps,axs101"; > ------------------->8---------------- It seems model is just a descriptive label and we can surely add them to existing DT. compatible on the other hand is more fundamental used for exact comparisons etc and follows the vendor,device convention. It is pretty common for compatible to have multiple strings for exactly the same reason as I have them here. Both axs101 and axs103 are based on sdp thus we want the ability to have both pieces of information and use as needed. While doing some other DT research recently, I found some of the best basic DT documentation is a somewhat misnamed in-kernel document Documentation/devicetree/booting-without-of.txt > But I do see problems with implementation of that thing. > Today we have a luxury of selection of AXS init functionality > based on that compatible value and if "snps,axs101" goes in > "model" then we'll need to add some more code in > arch/arc/plat-axs10x/axs10x.c that reads "model" value with > of_get_property() and then compare to "axs10{1|3}". > > Any thoughts? > > -Alexey ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: "compatible" and "model" properties in .dts for ARC boards 2015-11-06 4:45 ` "compatible" and "model" properties in .dts for ARC boards Vineet Gupta @ 2015-11-06 8:59 ` Arnd Bergmann 2015-11-06 10:57 ` Jonas Gorski 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2015-11-06 8:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vineet Gupta Cc: Alexey Brodkin, linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, jogo@openwrt.org, lkml, Rob Herring On Friday 06 November 2015 04:45:24 Vineet Gupta wrote: > > > > During OpenWRT upsreaming process one interesting topic was raised. > > See in the middle of https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2015-November/036959.html > > > > In Device Tree descriptions for our boards we don't use "model" property > > even though it is a required one as specified by ePAPR, see > > http://free-electrons.com/~thomas/pub/Power_ePAPR_APPROVED_v1.0.pdf, > > page 39 "Table 3-1 Root node properties". > > > > Instead we put 2 items in "compatible" property. > > > > For example: > > ------------------->8---------------- > > compatible = "snps,axs101", "snps,arc-sdp"; > > ------------------->8---------------- > > > > And from ePAPR standpoint it makes sense to split contents of that "compatible" > > property in 2: > > ------------------->8---------------- > > compatible = "snps,arc-sdp"; > > model = "snps,axs101"; > > ------------------->8---------------- > > It seems model is just a descriptive label and we can surely add them to existing DT. > compatible on the other hand is more fundamental used for exact comparisons etc > and follows the vendor,device convention. > It is pretty common for compatible to have multiple strings for exactly the same > reason as I have them here. Both axs101 and axs103 are based on sdp thus we want > the ability to have both pieces of information and use as needed. Correct. The model should also be a human readable name of the machine, just one string like "Synapsys AXS101 Development Board" (or whatever that is called). > > But I do see problems with implementation of that thing. > > Today we have a luxury of selection of AXS init functionality > > based on that compatible value and if "snps,axs101" goes in > > "model" then we'll need to add some more code in > > arch/arc/plat-axs10x/axs10x.c that reads "model" value with > > of_get_property() and then compare to "axs10{1|3}". > > > > Any thoughts? That should use the of_machine_is_compatible() helper. The model string is for printing in dmesg or /proc/cpuinfo. Arnd ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: "compatible" and "model" properties in .dts for ARC boards 2015-11-06 8:59 ` Arnd Bergmann @ 2015-11-06 10:57 ` Jonas Gorski 2015-11-17 12:18 ` Vineet Gupta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Jonas Gorski @ 2015-11-06 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnd Bergmann, Vineet Gupta Cc: Alexey Brodkin, linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, lkml, Rob Herring On 06.11.2015 09:59, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 06 November 2015 04:45:24 Vineet Gupta wrote: >>> >>> During OpenWRT upsreaming process one interesting topic was raised. >>> See in the middle of https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2015-November/036959.html >>> >>> In Device Tree descriptions for our boards we don't use "model" property >>> even though it is a required one as specified by ePAPR, see >>> http://free-electrons.com/~thomas/pub/Power_ePAPR_APPROVED_v1.0.pdf, >>> page 39 "Table 3-1 Root node properties". >>> >>> Instead we put 2 items in "compatible" property. >>> >>> For example: >>> ------------------->8---------------- >>> compatible = "snps,axs101", "snps,arc-sdp"; >>> ------------------->8---------------- >>> >>> And from ePAPR standpoint it makes sense to split contents of that "compatible" >>> property in 2: >>> ------------------->8---------------- >>> compatible = "snps,arc-sdp"; >>> model = "snps,axs101"; >>> ------------------->8---------------- >> >> It seems model is just a descriptive label and we can surely add them to existing DT. >> compatible on the other hand is more fundamental used for exact comparisons etc >> and follows the vendor,device convention. >> It is pretty common for compatible to have multiple strings for exactly the same >> reason as I have them here. Both axs101 and axs103 are based on sdp thus we want >> the ability to have both pieces of information and use as needed. > > Correct. > > The model should also be a human readable name of the machine, just one > string like "Synapsys AXS101 Development Board" (or whatever that is called). This contradicts ePAPR, which says the model's recommended* format is the same as the compatible one's (<vendor>,<model>). Most PowerPC and some MIPS dts files follow that, while ARM(64) uses the free text form. To me it looks like the intended usage was model = <actual_model>; compatible = <platform>; but the actual usage in arm is model = <human readable string>; compatible = <actual_model>, <platform>; Of course for changing this in the existing dts files it might be a bit late, but it would be good to decide which of these two is the actually expected format. It also is a required property, and we have a few boards not having a model property, including the example in Documentation/devicetree/usage-model.txt. Jonas * compatible strings are also only "recommended" to be in that format. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: "compatible" and "model" properties in .dts for ARC boards 2015-11-06 10:57 ` Jonas Gorski @ 2015-11-17 12:18 ` Vineet Gupta 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Vineet Gupta @ 2015-11-17 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonas Gorski, Arnd Bergmann, Vineet Gupta Cc: Alexey Brodkin, linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, lkml, Rob Herring On Friday 06 November 2015 04:27 PM, Jonas Gorski wrote: > On 06.11.2015 09:59, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Friday 06 November 2015 04:45:24 Vineet Gupta wrote: >>>> >>>> During OpenWRT upsreaming process one interesting topic was raised. >>>> See in the middle of https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2015-November/036959.html >>>> >>>> In Device Tree descriptions for our boards we don't use "model" property >>>> even though it is a required one as specified by ePAPR, see >>>> http://free-electrons.com/~thomas/pub/Power_ePAPR_APPROVED_v1.0.pdf, >>>> page 39 "Table 3-1 Root node properties". >>>> >>>> Instead we put 2 items in "compatible" property. >>>> >>>> For example: >>>> ------------------->8---------------- >>>> compatible = "snps,axs101", "snps,arc-sdp"; >>>> ------------------->8---------------- >>>> >>>> And from ePAPR standpoint it makes sense to split contents of that "compatible" >>>> property in 2: >>>> ------------------->8---------------- >>>> compatible = "snps,arc-sdp"; >>>> model = "snps,axs101"; >>>> ------------------->8---------------- >>> >>> It seems model is just a descriptive label and we can surely add them to existing DT. >>> compatible on the other hand is more fundamental used for exact comparisons etc >>> and follows the vendor,device convention. >>> It is pretty common for compatible to have multiple strings for exactly the same >>> reason as I have them here. Both axs101 and axs103 are based on sdp thus we want >>> the ability to have both pieces of information and use as needed. >> >> Correct. >> >> The model should also be a human readable name of the machine, just one >> string like "Synapsys AXS101 Development Board" (or whatever that is called). > > This contradicts ePAPR, which says the model's recommended* format is the same as > the compatible one's (<vendor>,<model>). Most PowerPC and some MIPS dts files > follow that, while ARM(64) uses the free text form. > > To me it looks like the intended usage was > model = <actual_model>; compatible = <platform>; > but the actual usage in arm is > model = <human readable string>; compatible = <actual_model>, <platform>; > > Of course for changing this in the existing dts files it might be a bit late, but it > would be good to decide which of these two is the actually expected format. > > It also is a required property, and we have a few boards not having a model property, > including the example in Documentation/devicetree/usage-model.txt. > > > Jonas > > * compatible strings are also only "recommended" to be in that format. > Alexey, can u please rework the DT files per Jonas' suggestion above. Thx, -Vineet ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-11-17 12:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <1446749422.3151.29.camel@synopsys.com>
2015-11-06 4:45 ` "compatible" and "model" properties in .dts for ARC boards Vineet Gupta
2015-11-06 8:59 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-11-06 10:57 ` Jonas Gorski
2015-11-17 12:18 ` Vineet Gupta
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox