On 05/22/18 12:32, Alan Tull wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:53 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Manivannan, >> >> On 04/25/18 10:26, Frank Rowand wrote: >>> Hi Manivannan, >>> >>> Sorry for the delay. I'll try to get to this today or tommorrow. >>> >>> -Frank >> >> Sorry for the even longer than expected delay. As I mentioned to you >> off-list (bad Frank!), I wanted to pull together a lot of my disparate >> thoughts on overlays before responding to your specific proposal and >> questions. The first (of probably many versions) of that write up >> is at: >> >> https://elinux.org/Frank%27s_Evolving_Overlay_Thoughts > > Slightly off topic (sorry), but you could move "FPGAs programmed after > kernel begins execution" to what has been completed since it's > implemented in drivers/fpga/of-fpga-region.c. The remaining issue for Thanks for the suggestion. I copied that to the completed section, but also left it in current location because the current location is creating a list of use cases. I clarified that items on the list of use cases could already be implemented. The use of overlays by FPGAs still face many of the issues that need to be resolved. As a random example, not judging whether the issue is important: consistency of /proc/device-tree/ as an overlay is being applied or removed. -Frank > that use is adding some kind of acceptable userspace interface, that > seems to be captured in "overlay manager" in the "issues and what > needs to be completed" section. > >> >> My thoughts on some of your questions are addressed on that page. >> I still need to read through your questions because there are >> probably several that I did not address on that page. >> >> -Frank >> >>> >>> >>> On 04/25/18 00:34, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >>>> Hi Frank, >>>> >>>> Did you had time to look into this? Especially I'd like to hear your >>>> opinion on the first pain point I have mentioned. I can understand >>>> that the whole point on introducing the of_overlay_fdt_apply() API >>>> is to remove the duplication of overlay FDT unflattening, but do you have >>>> any idea of how we can make this API work with overlay nodes appended >>>> to the base DTB? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Mani >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 08:08:04PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >>>>> Hello Everyone, >>>>> >>>>> I have just started working on the Devicetree Overlay Manager support in >>>>> kernel. The idea is to merge overlays at boot time specified via some >>>>> interface like kernel command line. The motivation for this work comes from >>>>> Overlay Manager [1] submitted by John last year. The mechanism which I have >>>>> been working on is an extension to John's work. It focusses on addressing >>>>> Rob's comments on the Overlay Manager which involves having multiple ways >>>>> to load overlays. >>>>> >>>>> Proposal: >>>>> ========= >>>>> >>>>> 1. Pass all devicetree overlays via following methods: >>>>> - Overlays appended to base DTB >>>>> - Individual overlays built into kernel as firmware blobs >>>>> - Any other ways? > > Would an interface that allows applying/removing overlays after boot > time work for you? I'm referring to something like Pantelis' ConfigFS > interface which has been proposed (and currently rejected). I > understand your proposal is on the kernel command line, but I am > wondering whether something like that could work for both our uses. > My use is applying overlays after the kernel has booted to reprogram a > FPGA and add nodes for the devices that show up in the FPGA (and > removing the overlays to prepare for reprogramming). > > Alan > >>>>> >>>>> 2. Specify overlays to load via kernel command line as below: >>>>> - overlay_mgr.overlays=<overlay1,overlay2,...> >>>>> >>>>> 3. Merge only the specified overlays during boot time. First look for the >>>>> overlay in the base DTB. If it is found, just apply it, else defer to firmware >>>>> load approach. >>>>> >>>>> The Overlay Manager code is expected to be very simple and will just do the >>>>> above mentioned work. Later on, it will be extended to support dynamic >>>>> modification of overlays from userspace with some additional security >>>>> features like having a property listed in the base devicetree for only >>>>> allowing changes to the current node and its child nodes, etc... >>>>> >>>>> Pain Points: >>>>> ============ >>>>> >>>>> 1. Starting from 4.17 we don't have any API exposed from DT core to merge >>>>> individual devicetree nodes. We only have of_overlay_fdt_apply() function >>>>> which takes the whole FDT. This will work very well for the firmware approach >>>>> since we will pass the overlays blobs but not for overlays appended to base DTB, >>>>> where we will pass individual overlay nodes. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Using firmware load method will force us to have this Overlay Manager code >>>>> at late_initcall level since firmware class exists only in fs_inticall level, >>>>> which might be too late for some devices. >>>>> >>>>> 3. This whole approach is not expected to work very well (still not yet tested) >>>>> on DSI based devices since it needs to be present at very early during boot >>>>> process. >>>>> >>>>> The Overlay Manager propsed here will be board agnostic and it should work on >>>>> all platforms supporting DT. This will be a _very_ useful feature for the >>>>> development boards such as 96Boards, Raspberry Pi, BBB etc... and also for >>>>> production ready devices. >>>>> >>>>> So, I'd like to hear suggestions/feedbacks for the above mentioned proposal & >>>>> pain points and hope to land the most awaited feature in kernel. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Mani >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/10/10/20 >>>> >>> >>> . >>> >> >> -- >> 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 > -- 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
