Hi Jon,
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 05:10:00PM +0100, jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> New thread split off from the simple-framebuffer discussion....
>
> Is there a generic, underlying problem here that needs to be solved?
> AFAIK no one has designed a general purpose mechanism for
> communicating boot loader state to the OS. There is the existing
> device tree <chosen> node but it is limited compared to what is
> needed. Maybe we should step back and first design a good solution to
> this basic problem. Then specific solutions for things like
> framebuffers would fall out of the basic design.
I think the fundamental problem here is unfortunately far too abstract
for the general solution to be any more concrete. The solution to "we
don't communicate boot state" is "we should communicate boot state".
We can perhaps come up with general guidelines (for instance, the clock
subsystem has assigned-* properties), but I don't think there's a
one-size-fits-all solution.
> So what are the requirements?
> 1) Indicate that the boot loader has set up a device
> 2) Indicate the purpose of that device
> 3) Protect the resources in use
> 4) Provide for a handoff to the OS specific device driver
> 5) Communicate all of this via the device tree
>
> So what is a device tree syntax that would solve this general problem?
> As a first design attempt, I would propose <boot> (or <chosen>) child
> nodes be added to the various core devices. By core device I mean the
> top level device, like the framebuffer, not each dependent clock and
> regulator.
>
> Inside the <boot> nodes a compatible string would be used to designate
> a device class the bootloader has assigned to the devices. For example
> - serial, framebuffer, media, input, network.
In general we should already know the class of device if we have a
driver for said device, no?
As far as I can tell all we need to have is a way of designating
preferred devices and their preferred/current configuration. We have
bits of that already (e.g. stdout-path, assigned-rate).
> Some examples, I've deleted a lot of properties to make them smaller.
> The boot loader could add these nodes either statically or
> dynamically.
>
> uart0: uart@01c18000 {
> compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a10-uart";
> clocks = <&ahb_gates 20>, <&uart2_clk>;
> clock-names = "ahb", "mod";
> boot {
> compatible = "boot,serial";
> baud = <192000>;
> console;
> };
> };
There's already the stdout-path (and stdin-path) binding for designating
a serial port. I think we should improve support for those rather than
introducing a new binding. The only painful part is describing the
pre-configured rate if the OS needs to know.
> reserved-memory {
> display_reserved: framebuffer@78000000 {
> reg = <0x78000000 0x800000>;
> };
> };
>
> fb0: fb@01c10000 {
> compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a10-framebuffer";
> clocks = <&ahb_gates 18>, <&fb2_clk>;
> clock-names = "ahb", "mod";
> boot {
> compatible = "boot,framebuffer";
> memory-region = <&display_reserved>;
> };
> };
I was under the impression that the reserved-memory binding could be
used for handing over the memory in use by a framebuffer, so as far as I
can see we only new thing to communicate would be the configured mode of
the display.
Do we have any systems with multiple displays where we need to specify
which is preferred?
> spi1: spi@01c16000 {
> compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a10-spi";
> clocks = <&ahb_gates 22>, <&spi2_clk>;
> clock-names = "ahb", "mod";
>
> flash0: flash@2 {
> compatible = "atmel,at12345";
> reg = <2>;
> spi-max-frequency = <100000>;
> boot {
> compatible = "boot,media";
> };
> };
> };
Is this a problem on existing systems? Do we need a DT property?
If so, this would be better as something like /chosen/root-device (so
you can't accidentally describe multiple devices as the boot medium).
> An OS booting off from a device tree like this can then implement
> support for boot,xxxx drivers if it chooses. If it doesn't implement
> support for the boot tags, nothing changes from the current situation.
>
> The problem with clocks and regulators can be addressed by following
> the chains of clocks/regulators in the parent nodes of the boot
> sections. This would be implement by these frameworks providing a
> "claim_all_xxx(DT node)" function. A boot,framebuffer driver would
> first call claim_all_clk(parent node) and claim_all_regulator(parent
> node). Need to figure out exactly how these functions would work.
I'm not sure I follow. What is the problem with clocks and regulators
that this tries to solve?
Are we just trying to leave them in their current configuration (rather
than disabling)? Are we trying to prevent other drivers from fiddling
with them? Something else?
> Driver handoff is the OS's problem. Under Linux the device specific
> drivers could soft-link to the boot,xxx code. After the device
> specific driver is fully initialized it would tell the boot,xxx driver
> to let go.
I'm not sure I follow why we need the stub drivers at all. Is the idea
to just have them hog resources until the real driver comes up?
> As a side effect this will eliminate the need for kernel command line
> parameters describing boot state. Like console="". Over time it might
> even be able to pass a DHCP IP address from uboot into the kernel.
We have a generic mechanism for communicating the MAC address of an
ethernet adapter. I don't see a fundamental reason we can't add
properties to communicate a DHCP lease and associated information. Is
anyone looking into that?
Thanks,
Mark.
--
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
