Hi,
> > Is that because the current software support is too limited? Are there
> > manufactures who want to create more complex designed, but are limited
> > by what can be described in the manifest?
> >
>
> most mikroBUS add-on boards in production lies in the category of
> sensors, displays, connectivity, mixed signal (ADC/DAC .etc) and if you
> look at the existing bindings under bindings/iio/ , most devices need
> only simple descriptions and the properties are mainly standard bus
> properties (SPI/I2C properties), IRQ, named-gpios, named properties,
> regulators, clocks the extension to manifest was made taking this into
> account and the named property description interface just maps the
> manifest entries to the unified device property interface under
> include/linux/property.h
How will the ethernet boards ([1], [2]) work? Where do they get
their MAC address from, for example. The DT has some nice properties
for that, but I doubt that will be possible with the manifest files.
I've looked at the manifest file for the w5500 board [3] and to me
it looks like that board will come up with a random MAC address on
each start. Thus, even today, you have some boards which require
a more complex description.
Apart from the discussion whether the manifest is a suitable or
sufficient mechanism to describe the hardware, I think the main
problem with the proposed binding, is that it doesn't follow the
binding Rob was proposing for a socket. If I want to use DT
overlays, how would you describe an add-on board?
The proposal was that the base board has something like
mikrobus: socket {
compatible = "mikrobus-socket";
i2c-parent = <&i2c0>;
spi-parent = <&spi0>;
i2c {};
spi {};
};
an add-on board can then have a DT snippet/overlay like the
following:
&mikrobus {
i2c {
eeprom@52: {
reg = <52>;
compatible = <atmel,at24..>;
}
};
spi {
sensor@0: {
reg = <0>;
compatible = <foobar>;
};
};
};
That should be possible with a binding for the mikrobus, which
in fact it is just a pin header with a standard pinout. Also as
Russell pointed out in v3, the EEPROM/manifest is not part of the
mikrobus standard. So maybe that deserves an own compatible, like
compatible = "mikroe,click", "mikrobus-socket";
Or maybe click-eeprom? Although click seems to be the brand name of
MikroElektronika.
-michael
[1] https://www.mikroe.com/eth-3-click
[2] https://www.mikroe.com/eth-wiz-click
[3] https://github.com/MikroElektronika/click_id/blob/main/manifests/ETH-WIZ-CLICK.mnfs
