On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 05:09:41PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > With overlays you can create the proper DT description stanza and end user's > job is to just put it somewhere and upload via precoded script or so [1]. > > [1]:https://docs.kernel.org/devicetree/overlay-notes.html Ah, okay, no, that's already a no-go, since existing device tree blobs aren't compiled with the dtc "-@" flag which would generate the __symbols__ node necessary for DT overlays to be applied over them. That, and it's clunky and uncalled for in general, both from my perspective as a driver developer and that of a random user, if a driver would just start requiring device tree overlays for more functionality. Overlays address none of the complaints I had with large DT bindings being large in general. They are still equally large, but now, they are also spread into multiple files. > For the second one I'm not really the expert. But either FPGA framework (if > they have anything working for this), or you also may look at Thunderbolt / > USB4 which uses similar approach while being PCIe devices. Okay, the latter > (USB4) is the PCIe topology, while FPGA is whatever behind the PCI switch. > Meaning that FPGA case from HW p.o.v. is closer to your case. A quick glance at Documentation/driver-api/fpga/ shows that it is a framework for dealing with reprogrammable hardware, and has infra to reprogram it. My hardware is fixed-function and doesn't need any of that. Are you suggesting that I should look at reusing some common infra with the fpga subsystem instead? A quick grep for device_add in drivers/fpga/ shows a bunch of open-coded device_add() and platform_device_add() calls. Is this what you wanted me to see or is there something else?
