On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 11:15:22PM -0700, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 6:40 AM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:19:16AM -0700, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 10:55 AM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 10:29:25AM -0700, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 8:11 AM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 07:02:28AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > > > > > > Add entries for MT8186 based Tentacruel / Tentacool Chromebooks. The two
> > > > > > > are based on the same board design: the former is a convertible device
> > > > > > > with a touchscreen, stylus, and some extra buttons; the latter is a
> > > > > > > clamshell device and lacks these additional features.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The two devices both have two variants. The difference is a second
> > > > > > > source touchpad controller that shares the same address as the original,
> > > > > > > but is incompatible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The extra SKU IDs for the Tentacruel devices map to different sensor
> > > > > > > components attached to the Embedded Controller. These are not visible
> > > > > > > to the main processor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wha? Given your ordering, is a "google,tentacruel-sku262144" a super-set
> > > > > > of "google,tentacruel-sku262145"? If not, this compatible ordering
> > > > > > doesn't make sense. I can't tell from your description, and the
> > > > > > absence of a
> > > > > > items:
> > > > > > - const: google,tentacruel-sku262145
> > > > > > - const: google,tentacruel-sku262146
> > > > > > - const: google,tentacruel-sku262147
> > > > > > - const: google,tentacruel
> > > > > > - const: mediatek,mt8186
> > > > > > suggests that there is no google,tentacruel-sku262145
> > > > > > device?
> > > > >
> > > > > AFAIK all four SKUs exist. And as far as the main processor is concerned,
> > > > > they look completely identical, so they should share the same device tree.
> > > > > As mentioned in the commit message, the differences are only visible to
> > > > > the embedded controller, which fuses the sensor inputs.
> > > >
> > > > Then it makes very little sense to write a binding like this.
> > > > If this was just for the 252144 SKU, this would be fine.
> > > > For the other SKUs, there is no way to uniquely identify them, as
> > > > all four of google,tentacruel-sku262144, google,tentacruel-sku262145,
> > > > google,tentacruel-sku262146 and google,tentacruel-sku262147 must be
> > > > present.
> > > > Given that, why even bother including the SKUs in the first place,
> > > > since no information can be derived from them that cannot be derived
> > > > from google,tentacruel?
> > > > There's something that I am clearly missing here...
> > >
> > > There are incompatible variants of google,tentacruel. This is why this
> > > patch has four google,tentacruel based entries. Of them, two are Tentacool,
> > > which are clamshell laptops, and two of them are Tentacruel, which are
> > > convertibles.
> > >
> > > Within each group there are two variants: the second variant swaps out
> > > the I2C touchpad controller. These two controllers use the same I2C
> > > address but use different compatible strings, so it's not possible to
> > > have them coexist within the same device tree file like we do for many
> > > other second source components.
> > >
> > > So the relationship looks like the following:
> > >
> > > google,tentacruel --- Tentacruel --- google,tentacruel-sku26214[4567]
> > > | |
> > > | -- google,tentacruel-sku2621{48,49,50,51}
> > > |
> > > -- Tentacool ---- google,tentacruel-sku327681
> > > |
> > > --- google,tentacruel-sku327683
> > >
> > > Also, the devices themselves only know their own SKU ID. The firmware
> > > will generate a list of compatible strings like:
> > >
> > > google,tentacruel-rev4-sku262144
> > > google,tentacruel-rev4
> > > google,tentacruel-sku262144
> > > google,tentacruel
> > >
> > > and try to find a match in the kernel FIT image. The method we currently
> > > use is to include all the applicable board compatible strings.
> >
> > Then it seems like what you need is something like
> > oneOf:
> > - items:
> > - const: google,tentacruel-sku262144
> > - const: google,tentacruel
> > - const: mediatek,mt8186
> > - items:
> > - enum:
> > - google,tentacruel-sku262145
> > - google,tentacruel-sku262146
> > - google,tentacruel-sku262147
> > - const: google,tentacruel-sku262144
> > - const: google,tentacruel
> > - const: mediatek,mt8186
> >
> > What you have at the moment just seems like a hack because you want to
> > stuff all of these compatible strings into a single dts.
>
> It is. And it works OK downstream. The reason we want to stuff them in
> one dts is because the firmware will not generate the fallback to
> sku262144 as the scheme above suggests.
I'm not going to ack the hack that you have here, sorry. Maybe Rob or
Krzysztof will. The list your firmware generates above doesn't even
match the contents of this patch, with the extra "rev-4" compatibles.
> Having three or four identical device trees just with different board
> compatible string sequences to me seems a bit redundant, and it does
> end up bloating our FIT image a bit, which impacts boot time.
I'm not aware of the capabilities of your bootloader when it comes to
setting properties before passing them to the kernel, but that is what I
would be doing to cut down on having 4 different dtbs.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
