Hi Rob,
On Tuesday, 16 January 2018 16:35:26 EET Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > On 01/15/18 12:29, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> On Monday, 15 January 2018 22:12:33 EET Frank Rowand wrote:
> >>> On 01/15/18 11:22, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, 15 January 2018 21:12:44 EET Frank Rowand wrote:
> >>>>> On 01/15/18 09:09, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>>>> The internal LVDS encoders now have their own DT bindings. Before
> >>>>>>> switching the driver infrastructure to those new bindings, implement
> >>>>>>> backward-compatibility through live DT patching.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Uhh, we just got rid of TI's patching and now adding this one. I
> >>>>>> guess
> >>>
> >>> Let me first answer the question that you ask later. You ask "Can we
> >>> work on this together to find a solution that would suit us both ?"
> >>>
> >>> My answer to that is emphatically YES. I will definitely work with you
> >>> to try to find a good solution.
> >>
> >> \o/
> >>
> >>>>> Please no. What we just got rid of was making it difficult for me to
> >>>>> make changes to the overlay infrastructure. There are issues with
> >>>>> overlays that need to be fixed before overlays become really usable.
> >>>>> I am about to propose the next change, which involves removing a
> >>>>> chunk of code that I will not be able to remove if this patch is
> >>>>> accepted (the proposal is awaiting me collecting some data about
> >>>>> the impact of the change, which I expect to complete this week).
> >>>
> >>> I should have thought just a little bit more before I hit send. The
> >>> situation is even worse than I wrote. One of the next steps (in
> >>> addition to what I wrote about above) is to change the overlay apply
> >>> function to accept a flattened device tree (FDT), not an expanded
> >>> device tree. In this changed model, the unflattened overlay is
> >>> not available to be modified before it is applied.
> >>
> >> That makes sense if we consider overlays to be immutable objects that we
> >> apply without offering a way to modify them. I won't challenge that API
> >> decision, as my use of an overlay here is a bit of a hack indeed.
> >>
> >>> It is important for the devicetree infrastructure to have ownership
> >>> of the FDT that is used to create the unflattened tree. (Notice
> >>> that in the proposed patch, rcar_du_of_get_overlay() follows the
> >>> TI example of doing a kmemdup of the blob (FDT), then uses the
> >>> copy for the unflatten. The kmemdup() in this case is to create
> >>> a persistent copy of the FDT.) The driver having ownership of
> >>> this copy, and having the ability to free it is one of the many
> >>> problems with the current overlay implementation.
> >>
> >> Yes, that's something I've identified as well. Lots of work has been done
> >> to clean up the OF core and we're clearly not done yet. I'm happy to see
> >> all the improvements you're working on.
> >>
> >>>>> Can you please handle both the old and new bindings through driver
> >>>>> code instead?
> >>>>
> >>>> I could, but it would be pointless. The point here is to allow cleanups
> >>>> in the driver. The LVDS encoder handling code is very intrusive in its
> >>>> current form and I need to get rid of it. There would be zero point in
> >>>> moving to the new infrastructure, as the main point is to get rid of
> >>>> the old code which prevents moving forward. As a consequence that would
> >>>> block new boards from receiving proper upstream support. An easy option
> >>>> is to break backward compatibility. I'm personally fine with that, but
> >>>> I assume other people would complain :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> I can, on the other hand, work with you to see how live DT patching
> >>>> could be implemented in this driver without blocking your code. When
> >>>> developing this patch series I start by patching the device tree
> >>>> manually without relying on overlays at all, but got blocked by the
> >>>> fact that I need to allocate phandles for new nodes I create. If there
> >>>> was an API to allocate an unused phandle I could avoid using the
> >>>> overlay infrastructure at all. Or there could be other
> >>>
> >>> It seems reasonable to provide a way to autogenerate a phandle (if
> >>> requested) by the devicetree code that creates a new node. Were you
> >>> using a function from drivers/of/dynamic.c to create the node?
> >>
> >> Not to allocate the node, no. I allocated the device_node structure
> >> manually with kzalloc(), and inserted it in the device tree with
> >> of_attach_node(). Is that the right approach ? I haven't been able to
> >> test the code as I stopped when I realized I couldn't allocate phandles.
> >>
> >>>> options I'm not thinking of as I don't know what the changes you're
> >>>> working on are. Can we work on this together to find a solution that
> >>>> would suit us both ?
> >>>
> >>> Again, yes, I would be glad to work with you on this.
> >>
> >> How would you like to proceed ? I can try the manual approach again but
> >> need information about how I could cleanly implement phandle allocation.
> >> I will likely then run into other issues for which I might need help.
> >
> > Here are my first thoughts, based on 4.15-rc7:
> >
> > Question to Rob and Frank: should of_attach_node() be called directly, or
> > should it be called indirectly by creating a change set that adds the
> > node?
> >
> > Frank's off the cuff answer (but would like to think more about it): since
> > the driver is modifying its own devicetree data, and thus no other entity
> > needs to be notified about the changes, there is no need to add the
> > complexity of using a change set.
>
> There's exactly 2 users outside of the DT core. That's generally a
> sign of an API I'd like to make private.
>
> > The following is how of_attach_node() could be modified to dynamically
> > create a phandle on request.
>
> How would this work for all the phandle references that need to be fixed up?
As I know which properties contain a phandle that needs to be fixed up, my
plan is to update those properties manually with the value of the newly
allocated phandle.
What I need here is the ability to insert the following structure in the
device tree:
lvds@feb90000 {
compatible = "renesas,r8a7796-lvds"; (*)
reg = <0 0xfeb90000 0 0x14>; (*)
clocks = <&cpg CPG_MOD 727>; (*)
ports {
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
port@0 {
reg = <0>;
lvds0_in: endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&du_out_lvds0>; (*)
};
};
port@1 {
reg = <1>;
lvds0_out: endpoint {
remote-endpoint = <&panel_in>; (*)
};
};
};
};
with the node unit address and all properties marked with a (*) computed at
runtime based on information extract from the device tree. Additionally I need
phandles for the lvds0_in and lvds0_out nodes, and set the value of two
properties in the tree with those phandles.
I've used overlays as that was the only way I found to allocate phandles, but
any other API will work for me as well.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
--
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
