Hi Rob,
On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 at 21:13, Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> U-Boot has some particular challenges with device tree and devices:
>
> - U-Boot has multiple build phases, such as a Secondary Program Loader
> (SPL) phase which typically runs in a pre-SDRAM environment where code
> and data space are limited. In particular, there may not be enough
> space for the full device tree blob. U-Boot uses various automated
> techniques to reduce the size from perhaps 40KB to 3KB. It is not
> always possible to handle these tags entirely at build time, since
> U-Boot proper must have the full device tree, even though we do not
> want it to process all nodes until after relocation.
> - Some U-Boot phases needs to run before the clocks are properly set up,
> where the CPU may be running very slowly. Therefore it is important to
> bind only those devices which are actually needed in that phase
> - U-Boot uses lazy initialisation for its devices, with 'bind' and
> 'probe' being separate steps. Even if a device is bound, it is not
> actually probed until it is used. This is necessary to keep the boot
> time reasonable, e.g. to under a second
>
> The phases of U-Boot in order are: TPL, VPL, SPL, U-Boot (first
> pre-relocation, then post-relocation). ALl but the last two are optional.
>
> For the above reasons, U-Boot only includes the full device tree in the
> final 'U-Boot proper' build. Even then, before relocation U-Boot only
> processes nodes which are marked as being needed.
>
> For this to work, U-Boot's driver model[1] provides a way to mark device
> tree nodes as applicable for a particular phase. This works by adding a
> tag to the node, e.g.:
>
> cru: clock-controller@ff760000 {
> phase,all;
> compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-cru";
> reg = <0x0 0xff760000 0x0 0x1000>;
> rockchip,grf = <&grf>;
> #clock-cells = <1>;
> #reset-cells = <1>;
> ...
> };
>
> Here the "phase,all" tag indicates that the node must be present in all
> phases, since the clock driver is required.
>
> There has been discussion over the years about whether this could be done
> in a property instead, e.g.
>
> options {
> phase,all = <&cru> <&gpio_a> ...;
> ...
> };
>
> Some problems with this:
>
> - we need to be able to merge several such tags from different .dtsi files
> since many boards have their own specific requirements
> - it is hard to find and cross-reference the affected nodes
> - it is more error-prone
> - it requires significant tool rework in U-Boot, including fdtgrep and
> the build system
> - is harder (slower, more code) to process since it involves scanning
> another node/property to find out what to do with a particular node
> - we don't want to add phandle arguments to the above since we are
> referring, e.g., to the clock device as a whole, not a paricular clock
> - the of-platdata feature[2], which converts device tree to C for even
> more constrained environments, would need to become aware of the
> /options node
>
> There is also the question about whether this needs to be U-Boot-specific,
> or whether the tags could be generic. From what I can tell, U-Boot is the
> only bootloader which seriously attempts to use a runtime device tree in
> all cases. For this version, an attempt is made to name the phases in a
> generic manner.
>
> It should also be noted that the approach provided here has stood the test
> of time, used in U-Boot for 8 years so far.
>
> So add the schema for this. This will allow a major class of schema
> exceptions to be dropped from the U-Boot source tree.
>
> This being sent to the mailing list since it might attract more review.
> A PR will be sent when this has had some review. That is why the file
> path is set up for https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema rather
> than the Linux kernel.
>
> [1] https://u-boot.readthedocs.io/en/latest/develop/driver-model/index.html
> [2] https://u-boot.readthedocs.io/en/latest/develop/driver-model/of-plat.html
>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Changes in v4:
> - Drop some unnecessary context from the commit message
> - Explain why parent nodes do not automatically inherit their children's
> tags
> - Rename the tags to use a phase,xxx format, explaining each one
>
> Changes in v3:
> - Fix an incorrect schema path in $id
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Expand docs to include a description of each tag
> - Fix some typos and unclear wording
>
> dtschema/lib.py | 5 +++
> dtschema/schemas/phase.yaml | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> test/phases.dts | 26 +++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 104 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 dtschema/schemas/phase.yaml
> create mode 100644 test/phases.dts
Any thoughts on this please?
Regards,
Simon
