[U-Boot] [PATCH 5/6] sunxi: video: Add simplefb support

[Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk>]

On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 09:58 +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> I /DO/ want comments though. Putting the node in /chosen is
> unconventional. I want to hear if anyone has a good reason why the
> framebuffers shouldn't be placed into /chosen.

I don't think putting it under /chosen is a problem at all. THe
semantics of some of hte convention properties are a bit odd under
there, but that's not insurmountable.

> >> AFAIK Grant agrees with v5
> >
> > AFAIK Grant hasn't actually said that. If he does ack it (or if someone
> > points me to the correct mail) then I have no further objections.
> 
> My word also isn't gospel.

I suppose I should have said something like "I trust Grant's judgement
more than my own on things relating to DT" ;-).

>  On controversial stuff I want to have
> consensus. For the clock patches and had a long conversation with Rob
> to make sure we were both in agreement before giving my final ack.
> 
> > In fact it's a bit odd to have a reg property under /chosen at all,
> > since it doesn't really fit in with the bus structure. I've done
> > something similar in some bindings I've authored[0], but AIUI I got that
> > wrong and really should have used a set of non-reg properties with a
> > single value so there was no need to parse using #*-cells  (cf the
> > initrd-start + initrd-end properties under /chosen). Sadly DT is an ABI,
> > so for my bindings I'm kind of stuck with it for the foreseeable future.
> >
> > [0]
> > http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=xen.git;a=blob;f=docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt;h=08ed7751859dbe2d2c32d86d7df371057d7b45a4;hb=HEAD
> 
> Ironic isn't it that I though of that as precedence when I suggested
> /chosen! :-)

:-)

> I actually don't have a problem with it. We do need a way to specify
> runtime memory usage, and /chosen is as good a place as any,
> particularly when it represents things that won't necessarily be
> relevant on kexec or dom0 boot.

The main issue which was explained to me with my Xen bindings was that
reg = <> isn't all that meaningful under /chosen because it doesn't fit
into the bus structure, so the #address-/size-cells stuff gets a bit
strange. It's probably tolerable for things which are strictly physical
RAM addresses (as opposed to mmio) since RAM isn't typically behind a
visible bus.

The scheme used for initrds sidesteps all those issues by using separate
(multicellular) properties for the start and end regions and not using
reg=<> and therefore naturally breaking the expected semantic link with
bus topology which reg implies etc.

> The other options are under either the /memory or the /reserved-memory
> tree. Rob and I talked about /reserved-memory quite a lot. We could
> put all the framebuffer details into the memory node that reserves the
> framebuffer. However, I don't like that idea because it kind of makes
> assumptions about how the framebuffer will be located inside the
> memory region and doesn't allow for multiple framebuffers within a
> single region.

Yes, that sounds strictly worse than the current solution to me.

Ian.