Hi,
On 04/16/2014 11:44 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please try to keep me in CC, even though the ML doesn't make it easy..
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:06:59AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>>>> @@ -139,4 +152,16 @@
>>>> reg_usb2_vbus: usb2-vbus {
>>>> status = "okay";
>>>> };
>>>> +
>>>> + rfkill_bt {
>>>> + compatible = "rfkill-gpio";
>>>> + pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&bt_pwr_pin_cubietruck>, <&clk_out_a_pins_a>;
>>>> + clocks = <&clk_out_a>;
>>>> + clock-frequency = <32768>;
>>>> + gpios = <&pio 7 18 0>; /* PH18 */
>>>> + gpio-names = "reset";
>>>> + rfkill-name = "bt";
>>>> + rfkill-type = <2>;
>>>> + };
>>>
>>> Hmmm, I don't think that's actually right.
>>>
>>> If you have such a device, then I'd expect it to be represented as a
>>> full device in the DT, probably with one part for the WiFi, one part
>>> for the Bluetooth, and here the definition of the rfkill device that
>>> controls it.
>>
>> The AP6210 is not one device, but 2 separate chips in one module. Each
>> chip has its own controls and interface. They just so happen to share
>> the same enclosure. Even 2-in-1 chips by Broadcom have separate controls
>> and interfaces. The WiFi side is most likely connected via SDIO, while
>> the Bluetooth side is connected to a UART, and optionally I2S for sound.
>
> It's even easier to represent then.
>
>>> But tying parts of the device to the rfkill that controls it, such as
>>> the clocks, or the frequency it runs at seems just wrong.
>>
>> I understand where you're coming from. For devices on buses that require
>> drivers (such as USB, SDIO) these properties probably should be tied to
>> the device node.
>>
>> For our use case here, which is a bluetooth chip connected on the UART,
>> there is no in kernel representation or driver to tie them to. Same goes
>> for UART based GPS chips. They just so happen to require toggling a GPIO,
>> and maybe enabling a specific clock, to get it running. Afterwards,
>> accessing it is done solely from userspace. For our Broadcom chips, the
>> user has to upload its firmware first, then designate the tty as a Bluetooth
>> HCI using hciattach.
>>
>> We are using the rfkill device as a on-off switch.
>
> I understand your point, but the fact that it's implemented in
> user-space, or that UART is not a bus (which probably should be), is
> only a Linux specific story, and how it's implemented in Linux (even
> if the whole rfkill node is another one, but let's stay on topic).
>
> This is a huge abstraction leak.
>
> Let's say you need the I2S stream you mentionned for some
> reason. Would you tie the audio stream to the rfkill node as well?
> I'm sorry, but from an hardware description perspective, it makes no
> sense.
Sorry wens, but I have to agree with Maxime here. What I really would
like to see is the bluetooth part of the AP6210 be a child node of the
uart node like how i2c slaves are child nodes of the i2c master node.
With my distro maintainer had on, I say that even under Linux we will
need this. Sure we can get things to work from userspace manually,
by running the necessary commands. But we want things to work automatically,
so we will need to know about the attached bluetooth device in userspace,
and the proper way to do that is to put the info in devicetree. I've not
yet thought about how userspace can then extract and react on this info,
but for things to work plug and play with a generic distro rootfs we
will need to eventually have some udev rules doing the firmware loading
and hciattach. Which starts with being able to identify that the uart
has a bcm hci bluetooth adapter attached.
Regards,
Hans
--
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
