Re: [PATCH 1/1] arm: dts: Enable device-tree overlay support for sun8i-h3 pi devices

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 10:53 +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 31/07/2023 03:46, MOESSBAUER, Felix wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 00:12 +0200, Jernej Škrabec wrote:
> > > Dne sreda, 19. julij 2023 ob 14:26:13 CEST je Moessbauer Felix
> > > napisal(a):
> > > > On Tue, 2023-07-11 at 21:42 +0200, Jernej Škrabec wrote:
> > > > > Dne torek, 27. junij 2023 ob 15:37:03 CEST je Felix
> > > > > Moessbauer
> > > > > 
> > > > > napisal(a):
> > > > > > Add the '-@' DTC option for the sun8i-h3 pi-class devices.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > option
> > > > > > populates the '__symbols__' node that contains all the
> > > > > > necessary
> > > > > > symbols
> > > > > > for supporting device-tree overlays (for instance from the
> > > > > > firmware
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > the bootloader) on these devices.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > These devices allow various modules to be connected and
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > enables
> > > > > > users to create out-of-tree device-tree overlays for these
> > > > > > modules.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Please note that this change does increase the size of the
> > > > > > resulting DTB
> > > > > > by ~30%. For example, with v6.4 increase in size is as
> > > > > > follows:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 22909 -> 29564 sun8i-h3-orangepi-lite.dtb
> > > > > > 24214 -> 30935 sun8i-h3-bananapi-m2-plus.dtb
> > > > > > 23915 -> 30664 sun8i-h3-nanopi-m1-plus.dtb
> > > > > > 22969 -> 29537 sun8i-h3-nanopi-m1.dtb
> > > > > > 24157 -> 30836 sun8i-h3-nanopi-duo2.dtb
> > > > > > 24110 -> 30845 sun8i-h3-orangepi-plus2e.dtb
> > > > > > 23472 -> 30037 sun8i-h3-orangepi-one.dtb
> > > > > > 24600 -> 31410 sun8i-h3-orangepi-plus.dtb
> > > > > > 23618 -> 30230 sun8i-h3-orangepi-2.dtb
> > > > > > 22170 -> 28548 sun8i-h3-orangepi-zero-plus2.dtb
> > > > > > 23258 -> 29795 sun8i-h3-nanopi-neo-air.dtb
> > > > > > 23113 -> 29699 sun8i-h3-zeropi.dtb
> > > > > > 22803 -> 29270 sun8i-h3-nanopi-neo.dtb
> > > > > > 24674 -> 31318 sun8i-h3-nanopi-r1.dtb
> > > > > > 23477 -> 30038 sun8i-h3-orangepi-pc.dtb
> > > > > > 24622 -> 31380 sun8i-h3-bananapi-m2-plus-v1.2.dtb
> > > > > > 23750 -> 30366 sun8i-h3-orangepi-pc-plus.dtb
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Felix Moessbauer
> > > > > > <felix.moessbauer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > Please note that I only tested the overlay on the sun8i-h3-
> > > > > > nanopi-
> > > > > > neo
> > > > > > device. However, the devices are quite similar and in
> > > > > > general
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > change to add symbols should be pretty safe. Similar
> > > > > > patches
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > applied to various other devices in the past without any
> > > > > > negative
> > > > > > effect (except for the increased size).
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm not a fan of this approach. What's wrong with letting
> > > > > kernel
> > > > > builders
> > > > > specify this flag on their own at compile time? That way size
> > > > > is
> > > > > still
> > > > > completely in domain of builder.

At least the Debian maintainers decided to NOT include the -@ for all
targets, but purely rely on what the kernel offers [5]. They motivate
this with a similar decision made in the Kernel. This brings us back to
my patch which enables the -@ for particular boards in the Kernel
itself.

[5] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=910727#28

> > > > 
> > > > That's easier said than done. These symbols are only needed for
> > > > some
> > > > targets (that are commonly used with overlays). But how should
> > > > a
> > > > general purpose kernel builder like Debian know which DT to
> > > > build
> > > > with
> > > > symbols and which without? In Yocto the overlays are not really
> > > > needed,
> > > > as often the original dts is just patched directly.
> > > 
> > > LibreELEC (distro I help with) has support for DT overlays for
> > > some
> > > time and
> > > it was easy to enable symbols for all DTs with simple
> > > "DTC_FLAGS=-@"
> > > addition
> 
> So why don't you use the U-Boot provided copy of the DTB? We sync the
> DTs regularly from the kernel repo to the U-Boot repo, and the U-Boot
> build system builds all DTBs with overlay support already.
> This also saves you from the hassle to actually find and load the
> right 
> DTB, as it automatically comes as part of the U-Boot binary.
> On the U-Boot prompt (or rather in a script) you would then do:
> => fdt move $fdtcontroladdr $fdt_addr_r
> => load <source> $fdtoverlay_addr_r <your_overlay>.dtbo
> => fdt apply $fdtoverlay_addr_r

For systems that use u-boot this is a very convenient option. Thanks
for bringing this up. However, there are other boot-chains where this
is not an option. Also, with this argument no target in the Kernel
would need to be compiled with -@.

My understanding was that adding the -@ is generally accepted if it is
only done on a per-device basis (which this patch does), but not
accepted for whole architectures. By that, I expect to see many similar
patches in the future.

Cheers,
Felix

> 
> You could also chime in on this U-Boot patch of mine, that loads and 
> applies all .dtbo files found in a given directory:
> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20230210110213.2531190-1-andre.przywara@xxxxxxx/
> 
> Cheers,
> Andre
> 
> > 
> > Thanks for the pointer. If this would be a kconfig option, I would
> > agree. There's a patch to add this option, but this did not get
> > accepted [3]. Just manually adding some "magic" options does not
> > feel
> > correct.
> > 
> > > to build command [1]. Do you see any downside except knowing you
> > > have
> > > to
> > > include it? On the upside, there is no need to patch each and
> > > every
> > > file and
> > > kernel builder has a choice if overlays should be supported or
> > > not.
> > 
> > There is a similar feature request for Debian, but without a
> > decision
> > yet [4]. I just cross-referenced it to this thread.
> > 
> > > Note that
> > > in some cases overlays can be needed even in the case when board
> > > doesn't have
> > > expansion ports.
> > 
> > If that is the case, why can't we at least add the patch from [3]
> > and
> > provide the distros an easy option to enable overlays? Once
> > integrated,
> > we can eventually get rid of all the per-device patches in the
> > kernel.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Felix
> > 
> > [3] https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg4252361.html
> > [4] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=910727
> > 
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jernej
> > > 
> > > [1]
> > > https://github.com/LibreELEC/LibreELEC.tv/blob/master/packages/linux/
> > > package.mk#L213
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > There has been a discussion in 2017 to improve the situation in
> > > > general, but without any final decision or implementation [1].
> > > > By
> > > > that,
> > > > these patches got more and more common. I recently sent a very
> > > > similar
> > > > patch for a riscv board that got accepted [2].
> > > > 
> > > > IMHO it is better to have these patches in the kernel instead
> > > > of
> > > > carrying different variants of this in each Linux distro. IMHO,
> > > > the
> > > > board vendors themselves should add this when they add a board.
> > > > 
> > > > [1]
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1502831736-28282-1-git-send-email-trini@konsulk
> > > > o.com/ [2]
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20230627080620.329873-1-felix.moess
> > > > bauer@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > 
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Felix
> > > > 
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Jernej
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Felix Moessbauer
> > > > > > Siemens AG
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >   arch/arm/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile | 19
> > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > >   1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile
> > > > > > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile index
> > > > > > 589a1ce1120a..eebb5a0c873a
> > > > > > 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile
> > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile
> > > > > > @@ -179,6 +179,25 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_MACH_SUN7I) += \
> > > > > >          sun7i-a20-pcduino3-nano.dtb \
> > > > > >          sun7i-a20-wexler-tab7200.dtb \
> > > > > >          sun7i-a20-wits-pro-a20-dkt.dtb
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +# Enables support for device-tree overlays for all pis
> > > > > > +DTC_FLAGS_sun8i-h3-orangepi-lite := -@
> > > > > > +DTC_FLAGS_sun8i-h3-bananapi-m2-plus := -@
> > > > > > +DTC_FLAGS_sun8i-h3-nanopi-m1-plus := -@
> > > > > > +DTC_FLAGS_sun8i-h3-nanopi-m1 := -@
> > > > > > +DTC_FLAGS_sun8i-h3-nanopi-duo2 := -@
> > > > > > +DTC_FLAGS_sun8i-h3-orangepi-plus2e := -@
> > > > > > +DTC_FLAGS_sun8i-h3-orangepi-one := -@
> > > > > > +DTC_FLAGS_sun8i-h3-orangepi-plus := -@
> > > > > > +DTC_FLAGS_sun8i-h3-orangepi-2 := -@
> > > > > > +DTC_FLAGS_sun8i-h3-orangepi-zero-plus2 := -@
> > > > > > +DTC_FLAGS_sun8i-h3-nanopi-neo-air := -@
> > > > > > +DTC_FLAGS_sun8i-h3-zeropi := -@
> > > > > > +DTC_FLAGS_sun8i-h3-nanopi-neo := -@
> > > > > > +DTC_FLAGS_sun8i-h3-nanopi-r1 := -@
> > > > > > +DTC_FLAGS_sun8i-h3-orangepi-pc := -@
> > > > > > +DTC_FLAGS_sun8i-h3-bananapi-m2-plus-v1.2 := -@
> > > > > > +DTC_FLAGS_sun8i-h3-orangepi-pc-plus := -@
> > > > > >   dtb-$(CONFIG_MACH_SUN8I) += \
> > > > > >          sun8i-a23-evb.dtb \
> > > > > >          sun8i-a23-gt90h-v4.dtb \
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 





[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux