On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:34:51AM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Am 13.01.2016 um 20:15 schrieb Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>: > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:28:00PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > >> Hi Tomeu, > >> > >> Am 12.01.2016 um 14:06 schrieb Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> > >>> On 11 May 2015 at 03:56, NeilBrown <neil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> here is version 4 of my "UART slave device" patch set, previously > >>>> known as "tty slave devices". > >>> > >>> Hi Neil, > >>> > >>> do you (or someone else) have plans to continue this work in the short > >>> or medium term? > >> > >> yes, there is something in our upstreaming pipeline. This one works for us on top of 4.4.0: > >> > >> <http://git.goldelico.com/?p=gta04-kernel.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/work/hns/misc/w2sg-tty-slave2-v4> > >> > >> There is one point still to be solved: the exact style of the DT bindings. > >> > >> We have an idea how a driver can implement two different styles (child node AND phandle) > >> so that it is up to the DTS developer to use the one that best fits into the existing DTS. > > > > From my perspective as a binding maintainer, and as I stated before, the > > child node approach made the most sense and was most consistent with the > > > way we handle other devices. > > I simply don't see that this is the most common way other devices are handled. > > I find many counter-examples which use phandles: > * gpios > * regulators > * iio channels used by other drivers (e.g. iio-hwmon) > * phy devices > * timers > * pwms > * interrupts > * dma As was previously described to you, in these cases phandles are used when these are _resources_ used by another device, not for the main programmer-visible interface to the device. Conceptually, A UART slave is far closer to SPI or I2C, where the slave is represented as a sub-node. I wasn't aware of any instances of timers being referred to by phandle by other devices -- that seems distinctly odd. Where do you see that happening. > * mcbsp (see e.g. http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-n900.dts#L127) Subsystem type bindings are more of a special case, and regardless the components have nodes in the relevant portions of the DT. > * mmc-pwr-seq-simple (which does not even describe a physical piece of hardware) If this is so different, how is it relevant? > All of them define the provider in one node. And refer to it by a phandle in another node > where they are used. > > So I see a lot of provider-consumer relationships modeled by phandles but not by child nodes. I agree that provider-consumer type relationships are typically described in this manner. However, master-slave relationships are not. > Next, if I look up real world DT sources, child nodes have in a majority of cases a > reg = <...> or ranges = <...> entry to define specific addresses of each child node and > to distinguish between them. > > This is not always the case (e.g. children of the root node) but often. Therefore I assume > the child-node pattern is mainly intended for distinguishing between multiple *addressable* > subdevices connected to a single provider, i.e. some sort of "shared bus". We can have MMC controllers that only have a single sub-device, yet this may have a node for this, rather than using phandles. The addressability has no bearing. > In the specific problem I (and Neil) want to solve (GTA04 devices and > more to come), the UART is simply a provider of serial data lines and > power control events (or whatever the driver implementations want to > do with the knowledge about this connection). > > Although we have multiple such uart-device connections, they are all > individual point-to-point. > > Not a bus structure with multiple clients. So there are several simple > provider-consumer relations. Hence there is no urgent need for > addresses of multiple child nodes of a single UART and no reg/ranges > property. As above, the addressability doesn't matter. > Of course, with the child node approach it would give the flexibility > to introduce such > a feature easily in the future - but I don't see a use case. Not even at the horizon. > > And I wonder how I should implement a driver if a child node provides a reg property. > Should I invent and implement a protocol layer to make the UART an addressable bus? Why would it have a reg property if it were a UART slave? If a device has multiple slave interfaces, it requires separate nodes for these. In that case, you'd need to group those together with phandle references. > But the chip I connect to an UART does not understand that and I can't change it. I don't follow what you mean by this. In what way does the binding description affect the physical device? Are you talking about a driver? > So it is probably not expected by the uart-slaves story - and I have no need for addressability > of multiple subnodes. > > So I conclude: the single chip is the consumer of a simple UART provider and should therefore > be described as a connection through a phandle. Like in all the other DT examples listed > above. The best description is IMHO: > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/iio-bindings.txt > > At least this is how I see the DT world when going through some device tree files > and trying to deduce what the common style is. > > This appears to be opposite to what you say: "most consistent with the way we > handle other devices". I only find that other devices which understand some addressing > scheme are handled that way. It's consistent with the way we handle *slave* devices (i.e. we describe the programming interface on a sub-node to the device that provides access to that programming interface). The phandle case describes side-band interfaces. > > I don't understand what the benefit of supporting two styles of > > description would be, relative to the maintenance cost. > > Supporting both styles is a proposal to make both of us happy. > > And there isn't much to be maintained. It is just a notice in the bindings document > of uart-slaves that the phandle is optional, if the node is the single child node of an > UART. If it isn't a subnode of an UART, or not at index 0, the phandle is needed > to describe the cross-reference. So it can be seen as a simple extension to move > the node outside but keep the link. > > A rough estimate is that it requires just ~20 lines to implement in our driver (unless > we need locks, error handling etc.). > > Then, the DT developers (like me) can decide which style better fits into the DTS > structure that already exists, when adding a salve device to some UART. Which then leads to confusion as DTs are arbitrarily different for no real reason. That makes things harder to maintain, even if only ~20 lines of code were necessary. > My experience from almost daily work with device trees is that phandles give > more flexibility in expressing the hardware structure in DT language. And they > allow to better group properties. In this case: "I am connected to interface ...". > > And the allow to easily modify it by includes and overlays to describe small hardware > variants ("I am now connected to a different interface ..."). Moving a subnode between > parents is difficult without multiple well designed include files, while for phandle > there is a simple idiom: > > #include <existing.dts(i)> > &child { link = <&new-parent>; }; > > IMHO this is easy to read and understand. And I have used that pattern several > times, e.g. for "adding" hardware to some evaluation board without touching the > original DTS. So I don't want to miss it in this case. > > > Nor do I > > understand your fixation with the phandle approach, > > Well, because I don't understand your fixation on the child node approach for this > non-addressable point-to-point connection. Why prepare for a feature that nobody > really needs and has asked for? Addressability was not my main concern. Consistency with other "bus" types is a major concern. See below for what I mean by "bus", as we are clearly using the term differently. > To be more specific: > > * I find that the phandle approach better (more flexible) suits the problem I want to have solved. > * there is no need for multiple child nodes for a point-to-point connection, because UART is rarely used as a bus. In Linux terminology a "bus" is effectively anything that provides us with a programming interface to some number of devices. That number may be 1 (i.e. a point-to-point connection is just a particular case of a "bus"). That is what I mean when I talk about a "bus", and that is why I believe that UARTs should be treated as with other busses if we are going to handle slave devices. I appreciate that this is not quite its usual meaning > * I see a lot of examples where phandles are intensively used and there it appears to be right to do so. > > I just know that you conclude "child nodes made the most sense and was most consistent". > > But I still wonder why. It does not appear to match what I observe in arch/arm/boot/dts > and the problem I want to solve. > > > given it has been > > repeatedly disagreed with by binding maintainers. > > Binding maintainers may sometimes be as wrong as I may be here. This needs a discussion > but not a circular argument, that it already has been disagreed repeatedly. We all make mistakes, certainly. However, you have ignored the distinction that has been described repeatedly w.r.t. slaves vs random side-band relationships. > I may have missed it, but I am also not aware that there was a technical analysis of both > approaches, comparing the pro's and con's. I had received requests to show code for the > phandle approach and we provided it. > > Coming to different conclusions can happen, if requirements are weighted differently. Or > the problem to be solved is not completely understood. But then, the requirements and > assumptions should be discussed (which is difficult on a patch-review-based discussion list). > > On a more general level, the key problem is that *I* have to write and maintain a > multitude of board specific DTS files (not all of them in mainline) using the style > *you* decide. While myself and others will be having to maintain bindings and infrastructure for whatever is used. I appreciate one style might be more painful in some cases, but that pain isn't necessarily only constrained to dts authors. > A style which I don't feel to be the "right" one, because it is less flexible (e.g. swapping > child nodes between parents in board variants). > > Summary: your decision gives flexibility for future expansion that I do not need (and > probably nobody else) and does not provide the flexibility I need today (and others > might appreciate). > > So what should I do? Except being fixed on the phandle approach, repeating my arguments > and describe requirements. And submitting our code and bindings document proposal > every now and then? Follow the advice from myself and others, and describe the device as a slave, under the UART providing access to the programmers' interface. By your own admission that works, it's simply that you don't like the style of the dts. Thanks, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
