Hello again!
On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 11:27 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> Right, so basically you need a binding for your flash device - a
> binding is the formal description of how a particular sort of device
> should be represented in the device tree. It's not uncommon for new
> ports to require a few new bindings for "system" devices.
>
> First off, I think you want option 1, more or less. Although I think
> it originally had a wider meaning, for a long time memory@ nodes have
> been used pretty much exclusively for general purpose RAM. I
> wouldn't
> suggest overloading that binding for something quite different.
>
> I guess in theory I should tell you that all bindings shoul be made
> clearly, standardized, published and so forth. In practice, well,
> it's a tradeoff. Getting a binding reviewed, published and so forth
> will generally improve its quality, mean less work for others who use
> the device in the future and other good things. On the other hand it
> it can be a lot of work. It's definitely worth it for common
> devices;
> maybe not so much for board-specific one-offs.
>
> Obviously, the first step is to look for an existing binding for the
> device. How to establish and maintain a canonical repository of
> bindings is a subject of continuing debate. In the meantime the
> places to look are Documentation/devicetree/bindings in the Linux
> kernel source, and devicetree.org. There may be other places, but I
> don't know them off hand.
>
> From the description of your device, I kind of doubt there's an
> existing binding, though. So you'll need to write one. Good news is
> your device is pretty simple - you can probably copy a binding for a
> similar device, and just change the 'compatible' value and make any
> few tweaks you need.
>
> I do recommend posting your draft binding here and getting at least
> cursory new. If you're new to writing bindings, there are a fair few
> gotchas - things that might not make the binding unusable, but will
> differ from existing conventions enough to make life harder for
> people.
Thank you David for your reply! When I have something ready, I'll post
it here in the hope of some review. As you noticed - this "device" is
indeed extremely simple, so I hope it won't be that hard (;
I'm not so sure about the "standardization" and "publication" part. I
do realize that primary usage of devicetrees will be on "desktop PC"
and the use in microcontrollers is just an interesting curiosity for
now. Apart from the Zephyr project which I mentioned, I only found one
more project for microcontrollers which was using *.dts files - the
F4OS, which unfortunately seems dead. And if Zephyr didn't bother to
standarize and publish anything... (; We'll see how things will evolve.
Anyway - a few more days with devicetree and I have another question. I
don't want to start a new thread for that, as it is related to the
first one anyway. This one is harder, as I found no examples at all, so
I have absolutely nothing to start with. There are microcontroller
cores which may or may not contain a floating-point unit (FPU) - for
example ARM Cortex-M4 may have one or none. There are also
microcontroller cores which may contain either a single-precision or
double-precision FPU - for example ARM Cortex-M7, which may have either
fpv5-sp-d16 or fpv5-d16 FPU. Currently I include that info in the
kconfig system, where appropriate hidden options are set when selecting
a particular chip model/family. As you may imagine I would also like to
have that info in the devicetree. I see several options to express that
information, but I'm not sure which one fits best.
1. In some places the cores which have FPU are suffixed with "F" ("ARM
Cortex-M4" becomes "ARM Cortex-M4F"), so I'm considering embedding that
info inside "compatible" string of the cpu nodes (for example
"arm,cortex-m4" or "arm,cortex-m4f"). The problem here is that this
naming is not official and this wouldn't allow to differentiate between
different types of FPU (for example - does "arm,cortex-m7f" have
single-precision or double-precision FPU).
2. I could just add a non-standard property to cpu nodes (or maybe to
cpus node?), something like:
distortos,fpu = "fpv5-d16";
3. I could add FPU as a new node, where I could describe it with the
standard "compatible" property. I think this is actually the best
approach, but I'm having hard time thinking about location of such node
- should it be placed in the root of the devicetree, or maybe as a
child of the cpu node? The second variant seems to be the best one, as
it fits the scenario of Asymmetric Multiprocessing, where the FPU may
be present only on selected cores.
Could anyone share any pointers on that matter? Again - thanks in
advance!
Regards,
FCh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree-spec" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
