On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:13:35PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/24/2016 10:50 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> > Provides the document explaining the internal mechanics of
> > plugins and options.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Documentation/dt-object-internal.txt | 318 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 318 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 Documentation/dt-object-internal.txt
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/dt-object-internal.txt b/Documentation/dt-object-internal.txt
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..d5b841e
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/dt-object-internal.txt
> > @@ -0,0 +1,318 @@
> > +Device Tree Dynamic Object format internals
> > +-------------------------------------------
> > +
> > +The Device Tree for most platforms is a static representation of
> > +the hardware capabilities. This is insufficient for many platforms
> > +that need to dynamically insert device tree fragments to the
> > +running kernel's live tree.
> > +
> > +This document explains the the device tree object format and the
> > +modifications made to the device tree compiler, which make it possible.
> > +
> > +1. Simplified Problem Definition
> > +--------------------------------
> > +
> > +Assume we have a platform which boots using following simplified device tree.
> > +
> > +---- foo.dts -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > + /* FOO platform */
> > + / {
> > + compatible = "corp,foo";
> > +
> > + /* shared resources */
> > + res: res {
> > + };
> > +
> > + /* On chip peripherals */
> > + ocp: ocp {
> > + /* peripherals that are always instantiated */
> > + peripheral1 { ... };
> > + };
> > + };
> > +---- foo.dts -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > +
> > +We have a number of peripherals that after probing (using some undefined method)
> > +should result in different device tree configuration.
> > +
> > +We cannot boot with this static tree because due to the configuration of the
> > +foo platform there exist multiple conficting peripherals DT fragments.
> > +
> > +So for the bar peripheral we would have this:
> > +
> > +---- foo+bar.dts -------------------------------------------------------------
> > + /* FOO platform + bar peripheral */
> > + / {
> > + compatible = "corp,foo";
> > +
> > + /* shared resources */
> > + res: res {
> > + };
> > +
> > + /* On chip peripherals */
> > + ocp: ocp {
> > + /* peripherals that are always instantiated */
> > + peripheral1 { ... };
> > +
> > + /* bar peripheral */
> > + bar {
> > + compatible = "corp,bar";
> > + ... /* various properties and child nodes */
> > + };
> > + };
> > + };
> > +---- foo+bar.dts -------------------------------------------------------------
> > +
> > +While for the baz peripheral we would have this:
> > +
> > +---- foo+baz.dts -------------------------------------------------------------
> > + /* FOO platform + baz peripheral */
> > + / {
> > + compatible = "corp,foo";
> > +
> > + /* shared resources */
> > + res: res {
> > + /* baz resources */
> > + baz_res: res_baz { ... };
> > + };
> > +
> > + /* On chip peripherals */
> > + ocp: ocp {
> > + /* peripherals that are always instantiated */
> > + peripheral1 { ... };
> > +
> > + /* baz peripheral */
> > + baz {
> > + compatible = "corp,baz";
> > + /* reference to another point in the tree */
> > + ref-to-res = <&baz_res>;
> > + ... /* various properties and child nodes */
> > + };
> > + };
> > + };
> > +---- foo+baz.dts -------------------------------------------------------------
> > +
> > +We note that the baz case is more complicated, since the baz peripheral needs to
> > +reference another node in the DT tree.
> > +
> > +2. Device Tree Object Format Requirements
> > +-----------------------------------------
> > +
> > +Since the device tree is used for booting a number of very different hardware
> > +platforms it is imperative that we tread very carefully.
> > +
> > +2.a) No changes to the Device Tree binary format for the base tree. We cannot
> > +modify the tree format at all and all the information we require should be
> > +encoded using device tree itself. We can add nodes that can be safely ignored
> > +by both bootloaders and the kernel. The plugin dtb's are optionally tagged
> > +with a different magic number in the header but otherwise they too are simple
> > +blobs.
> > +
> > +2.b) Changes to the DTS source format should be absolutely minimal, and should
> > +only be needed for the DT fragment definitions, and not the base boot DT.
> > +
> > +2.c) An explicit option should be used to instruct DTC to generate the required
> > +information needed for object resolution. Platforms that don't use the
> > +dynamic object format can safely ignore it.
> > +
> > +2.d) Finally, DT syntax changes should be kept to a minimum. It should be
> > +possible to express everything using the existing DT syntax.
> > +
> > +3. Implementation
> > +-----------------
> > +
> > +The basic unit of addressing in Device Tree is the phandle. Turns out it's
> > +relatively simple to extend the way phandles are generated and referenced
> > +so that it's possible to dynamically convert symbolic references (labels)
> > +to phandle values. This is a valid assumption as long as the author uses
> > +reference syntax and does not assign phandle values manually (which might
> > +be a problem with decompiled source files).
> > +
> > +We can roughly divide the operation into two steps.
> > +
> > +3.a) Compilation of the base board DTS file using the '-@' option
> > +generates a valid DT blob with an added __symbols__ node at the root node,
> > +containing a list of all nodes that are marked with a label.
> > +
> > +Using the foo.dts file above the following node will be generated;
> > +
> > +$ dtc -@ -O dtb -o foo.dtb -b 0 foo.dts
> > +$ fdtdump foo.dtb
> > +...
> > +/ {
> > + ...
> > + res {
> > + ...
> > + phandle = <0x00000001>;
> > + ...
> > + };
> > + ocp {
> > + ...
> > + phandle = <0x00000002>;
> > + ...
> > + };
> > + __symbols__ {
> > + res="/res";
> > + ocp="/ocp";
> > + };
> > +};
> > +
> > +Notice that all the nodes that had a label have been recorded, and that
> > +phandles have been generated for them.
> > +
> > +This blob can be used to boot the board normally, the __symbols__ node will
> > +be safely ignored both by the bootloader and the kernel (the only loss will
> > +be a few bytes of memory and disk space).
> > +
> > +3.b) The Device Tree fragments must be compiled with the same option but they
> > +must also have a tag (/plugin/) that allows undefined references to nodes
> > +that are not present at compilation time to be recorded so that the runtime
> > +loader can fix them.
> > +
> > +So the bar peripheral's DTS format would be of the form:
> > +
> > +/dts-v1/ /plugin/; /* allow undefined references and record them */
> > +/ {
> > + .... /* various properties for loader use; i.e. part id etc. */
> > + fragment@0 {
> > + target = <&ocp>;
> > + __overlay__ {
> > + /* bar peripheral */
> > + bar {
> > + compatible = "corp,bar";
> > + ... /* various properties and child nodes */
> > + }
>
> };
>
> > + };
> > + };
> > +};
>
> Other than the fact that the above syntax is already in the Linux
> kernel overlay implementation, is there a need for the target
> property and the __overlay__ node? I haven't figured out what
> extra value they provide.
I've been assuming that the fact the syntax is already used in the
kernel was the main reason here.
> Without those added, the overlay dts becomes simpler (though for a
> multi-node target path example this would be more complex unless a label
> was used for the target node):
>
> +/dts-v1/ /plugin/; /* allow undefined references and record them */
> +/ {
> + .... /* various properties for loader use; i.e. part id etc. */
> + ocp {
> + /* bar peripheral */
> + bar {
> + compatible = "corp,bar";
> + ... /* various properties and child nodes */
> + };
> + };
> +};
Hmm, that is simpler - and avoids the rather silly fact in the current
version that there's a basically useless phandle value here - it will
always be -1 and have to be resolved using data elsewhere.
That said, I'm not sure the change is enough of a win to recommend
changing it given that the __overlay__ format is in use in the wild.
--
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
