On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:54 PM Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <lkml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12.02.21 10:58, Linus Walleij wrote: > > If the usecase is to explicitly work around deployed firmware that cannot > > and will not be upgraded/fixed by describing the hardware using DT > > instead, based on just the DMI ID then we should spell that out > > explicitly. > > Okay, maybe I should have stated this more clearly. > > OTOH, the scope is also a little bit greater: certain external cards > that don't need much special handling for the card itself, just > enumerate devices (and connections between them) using existing drivers. > > That's a pretty common scenario in industrial backplane systems, where > we have lots of different (even application specific) cards, usually > composed of standard chips, that can be identified by some ID, but > cannot describe themselves. We have to write lots of specific drivers > for them, usually just for instantiating existing drivers. (we rarely > see such code going towards mainline). > > A similar case (mainlined) seems to be the RCAR display unit - they're > using dt overlays that are built into the driver and applied by it > based on the detected DU at runtime. RCAR seems to be a pure DT > platform, so that's an obvious move. APU2/3/4 is ACPI based, so I went > in a different direction - but I'm now investigating how to make DT > overlays work on an ACPI platform (eg. needs some initial nodes, ...) > In case that's successful, I'll rework my RFC to use overlays, and > it will become much smaller (my oftree core changes then won't be > necessary anymore). I understand. I have had the same problem with trying to fix 96boards mezzanines. I also tried to sidestep the DT overlays, and it was generally disliked. The DT people have made up their mind that overlays is what they want to use for this type of stuff. Yours, Linus Walleij
