On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 09:01:30AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:44:56AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 08:35:46AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:47 PM, David Gibson
> > > <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:51:46AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:07 PM, David Gibson
> > > >> <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 02:46:59PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > >> >> Node name unit-addresses should never begin with 0x or leading 0s
> > > >> >> regardless of whether they have a bus specific address (i.e. one with
> > > >> >> commas) or not. Add warnings to check for these cases.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hmm.. I'm pretty sure that's true in practice, but it's not true in
> > > >> > theory. A bus could define it's unit address format just about
> > > >> > however it wants, including with leading 0s.
> > > >>
> > > >> Only if it is not reviewed... This whole check is about what best
> > > >> practices are, not what is possible.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm. dtc checks are really about checking for best practice at the
> > > > level of individual dts files, though, not bindings.
> > >
> > > Checking simple-bus specifically would be checking a binding.
> >
> > Sorry, I wasn't clear. dtc checking the dts against a binding is
> > fine, but checking the sanity of the binding itself is beyond its
> > scope.
> >
> > > >> > I think a better approach would be to add a test specific to
> > > >> > simple-bus devices (by looking at compatible on the parent) that fully
> > > >> > checks the unit address.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > From there we can start adding tests for other bus types.
> > > >>
> > > >> simple-bus is easy enough,
> > > >
> > > > So, start with that, then tackle the next problem.
> > > >
> > > >> but then next up would be I2C and SPI. We
> > > >> can't generically tell if a node is on I2C or SPI bus.
> > > >
> > > > Why not? Or perhaps.. how generically do you need? I think having a
> > > > big list of i2c / spi controllers would be acceptable here, if not
> > > > ideal.
> > >
> > > So someone adds a new controller, puts crap in for unit addresses, and
> > > then no warnings until that compatible string is added to dtc. And I'm
> > > still left spending my time in reviews telling them to fix this
> > > trivial crap.
> > >
> > > That's roughly 60 I2C controllers (families, so multiple compatible
> > > strings each) plus similar number of SPI controllers, OF-graph
> > > binding, and random other things where reg gets used.
> >
> > Ah, I see.
> >
> > Ok, I guess we do need to have an option for a "fallback" scheme for
> > unit addresses (i.e. hex) for bus types we don't specifically
> > recognize. But I'd still like the logic to be:
> > if (known bus type)
> > check against format for this bus type
> > else
> > check against fallback format
> >
> > Rather than putting the second test in with a hacked up set of
> > exclusions.
>
> Okay, makes sense.
>
> Do you think we still need simple-bus as an explicit type given the
> check is the same as the default? Might be useful to have if we want to
> add some checks that address translations work.
So they should be able to have common code to actually do the check /
formatting, but yes, I'd like an explicit check for simple-bus as
well.
> > To do this nicely, I think the best way will be to add a bus_type
> > field to the node structure in dtc, and have it populated (with an
> > option for "unknown") in an early check pass, that later unit address
> > tests can references as a prereq.
> >
> > Pointer to a struct with unit address formatting functions, with NULL
> > for unknown is the obvious choice to me for bus_type.
>
> So, something like this for the first stage:
>
> static bool pci_bus_check_is_type(struct node *node)
> {
> struct property *prop;
>
> if (!node || !node->parent)
> return false;
>
> prop = get_property(node->parent, "device_type");
> if (!prop)
> return false;
>
> if (strcmp(prop->val, "pci") == 0)
> return true;
>
> return false;
> }
>
> static void pci_bus_check_unit_address()
> {
>
> }
>
> struct bus_type_fns {
> .check_is_type = pci_bus_check_is_type,
> .check_unit_address = pci_bus_check_unit_address,
> } pci_bus_fns;
>
> struct bus_type_fns * {
> &pci_bus_fns,
> NULL
> } bus_types;
>
> static void fixup_bus_type(struct check *c, struct node *root,
> struct node *node)
> {
> struct bus_type_fns **bus;
>
> for (bus = bus_types; *bus != NULL; bus++) {
> if (!(*bus)->check_is_type(node))
> continue;
>
> node->bus_type = *bus;
> break;
> }
> }
> ERROR(bus_type, NULL, NULL, fixup_bus_type, NULL, NULL);
Uh.. close-ish, but I think we can a bit better. This approach means
the checks won't happen if someone forgets the device_type. So, I
think it's preferable to determine bus types (where we can) for the
bus parent node, rather than the child nodes; then make the checks on
the child nodes based on the bus_type of the parent. So maybe
something like
struct bus_type {
.expected_addr_cells = 3,
.expected_size_cells = 2,
.is_type = is_pci_bridge,
.check_unit_addr = pci_unit_addr,
} pci_bus_type;
struct bus_type {
.expected_addr_cells = -1, /* For don't care */
.expected_size_cells = -1,
.is_type = is_simple_bridge,
.check_unit_addr = default_unit_addr,
} simple_bus_type;
Checking the addr and size cells here means you can make the unit
address checker have the "reg" format checker as a prereq, so you
don't have to worry about badly constructed "reg" properties in the
unit address format function.
static void check_unit_address_format(struct check *c,
struct node *dt,
struct node *node)
{
struct bus_type *bt;
char expected
if (!node->parent)
return;
bt = node->parent->bus_type;
if (!bt)
bt = default_bus_type;
bt->check_unit_addr(c, dt, node);
}
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
