On 7/15/2017 10:35 PM, David Gibson wrote:
But.. I'm very uneasy about the idea.
The first thing, is that this relies on the dts file containing the
&whatever phandle reference syntax wherever there should be a phandle
reference. That's normal, but nothing stops a user from simply
putting an actual number there, manually assigning that number to
another node's phandle and generating a valid dtb that way.
More importantly, it won't detect phandles if the tree comes from a
source other than a dts - for example if you flatten /proc/device-tree
with -I fs, or have code which flattens a tree presented by real Open
Firmware it won't have that phandle metadata, just integer values.
Yeah, so the metadata does not contain full information. That's fine
because it's still better than nothing.
Now those might not be something that happens in your use case, but
I'm pretty concerned that if I added this functionality, people are
going to forget that properties are all, fundamentally, bytestrings
and get surprised when tools don't magically know where the phandles
are in some cases.
That said, I'm open to persuasion if a good enough case is made for
this functionality.
So, what we need fundamentally is a way to detect dependencies in the
devicetree. Mark is arguing that we cannot *automate* the assignment of
dependent devices to the same VM. However, just detecting that there is
a missing dependency goes a long way. What we have now is guest drivers
failing in various manners, but what they cannot do is point the user to
the specific device that they need, because they don't have the host FDT
in their VM.
For example, a driver may print something like
[ 2.035071] xuartps ff000000.serial: pclk clock not found.
To resolve this, the user needs to be proficient with the device tree.
Of course, "pclk" is not a node name in the host FDT. However, if
configuration software could detect this at the time the set of the VM's
assigned physical devices was created, it could give the user the name
of the device that *probably* also needs to be assigned to the same VM.
The user wouldn't need to learn anything about devicetree, they would
just need to do a few mouse clicks to assign the dependent device. And
now it's the software's concern if that assignment is not trivial, as
Mark warns us.
To summarize, full automation is unfeasible and it is understood, but
just the dependency information is very helpful too.
But then, as Mark Rutland says in his other replies, locating phandles
is far from the only problem in trying to passthrough random DT nodes
to a guest.
--
Cyril
--
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
