Hi Frank,
> On Jul 1, 2016, at 21:21 , Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 07/01/16 09:56, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 2016, at 19:31 , Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/01/16 03:59, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>>> Hi Frank,
>>>>
>>>> Comments inline.
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 1, 2016, at 03:02 , Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been trying to wrap my head around what Pantelis and Rob have written
>>>>> on the subject of a device tree representation of a connector for a
>>>>> daughter board to connect to (eg a cape or a shield) and the representation
>>>>> of the daughter board. (Or any other physically pluggable object.)
>>>>>
>>>>> After trying to make sense of what had been written (or presented via slides
>>>>> at a conference - thanks Pantelis!), I decided to go back to first principals
>>>>> of what we are trying to accomplish. I came up with some really simple bogus
>>>>> examples to try to explain what my thought process is.
>>>>>
>>>>> To start with, assume that the device that will eventually be on a daughter
>>>>> board is first soldered onto the main board. Then the device tree will
>>>>> look like:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ cat board.dts
>>>>> /dts-v1/;
>>>>>
>>>>> / {
>>>>> #address-cells = < 1 >;
>>>>> #size-cells = < 1 >;
>>>>>
>>>>> tree_1: soc@0 {
>>>>> reg = <0x0 0x0>;
>>>>>
>>>>> spi_1: spi1 {
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> &spi_1 {
>>>>> ethernet-switch@0 {
>>>>> compatible = "micrel,ks8995m";
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> #include "spi_codec.dtsi"
>>>>>
>>>>> $ cat spi_codec.dtsi
>>>>> &spi_1 {
>>>>> codec@1 {
>>>>> compatible = "ti,tlv320aic26";
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> #----- codec chip on cape
>>>>>
>>>>> Then suppose I move the codec chip to a cape. Then I will have the same
>>>>> exact .dts and .dtsi and everything still works.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> @----- codec chip on cape, overlay
>>>>>
>>>>> If I want to use overlays, I only have to add the version and "/plugin/",
>>>>> then use the '-@' flag for dtc (both for the previous board.dts and
>>>>> this spi_codec_overlay.dts):
>>>>>
>>>>> $ cat spi_codec_overlay.dts
>>>>> /dts-v1/;
>>>>>
>>>>> /plugin/;
>>>>>
>>>>> &spi_1 {
>>>>> codec@1 {
>>>>> compatible = "ti,tlv320aic26";
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The correct form now for the /plugin/ declaration should be like
>>>>
>>>> /dts-v1/ /plugin/;
>>>>
>>>> The old method still works for backward compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> In fact with the new patches you don’t even /plugin/ since when
>>>> compiling an overlay we can turn on the plugin flag by looking
>>>> at the output type (dtbo).
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> #----- codec chip on cape, overlay, connector
>>>>>
>>>>> Now we move into the realm of connectors. My mental model of what the
>>>>> hardware and driver look like has not changed. The only thing that has
>>>>> changed is that I want to be able to specify that the connector that
>>>>> the cape is plugged into has some pins that are the spi bus /soc/spi1.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That’s not nearly enough. You might have extra
>>>> gpio/interrupt/dma/gpmc(memory-controller) pins.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> I was keeping the example _very_ simple. I was trying to illustrate
>>> the _concept_, not provide a full implementation.
>>>
>>> In a real use, the connector node would provide a node for each of the
>>> things routed to the connector.
>>>
>>
>> We need the example of how to handle pinmux cause it’s the trickiest
>> thing of all.
>>
>>>
>>>> We can disregard dma and gpmc like interfaces for now but gpio and
>>>> interrupt pins are required.
>>>>
>>>> For instance the spi device might have an extra gpio that it’s using
>>>> to signal some kind of condition (for example low-battery) which an
>>>> application (not just the kernel) can use to make a platform specific
>>>> decision.
>>>>
>>>>> The following _almost_ but not quite gets me what I want. Note that
>>>>> the only thing the connector node does is provide some kind of
>>>>> pointer or reference to what node(s) are physically routed through
>>>>> the connector. (This node will turn out to not actually work in
>>>>> this example.)
>>>>>
>>>>> $ cat board_with_connector.dts
>>>>> /dts-v1/;
>>>>>
>>>>> / {
>>>>> #address-cells = < 1 >;
>>>>> #size-cells = < 1 >;
>>>>>
>>>>> tree_1: soc@0 {
>>>>> reg = <0x0 0x0>;
>>>>>
>>>>> spi_1: spi1 {
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> connector_1: connector_1 {
>>>>> spi1 {
>>>>> target_phandle = <&spi_1>;
>>>>> target_path = "/soc/spi1";
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> &spi_1 {
>>>>> ethernet-switch@0 {
>>>>> compatible = "micrel,ks8995m";
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> $ cat spi_codec_overlay_with_connector.dts
>>>>> /dts-v1/;
>>>>>
>>>>> /plugin/;
>>>>>
>>>>> &connector_1 {
>>>>> spi1 {
>>>>> codec@1 {
>>>>> compatible = "ti,tlv320aic26";
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> This is a subset of what’s supported by the patch I’ve sent out.
>>>
>>> Yes. Same comment as above.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Your example works as long as you assume that there’s no pinmuxing
>>>> related to the configuration of the spi controller when routed out
>>>> to the connector pins.
>>>
>>> No. Pinmuxing is part of the host board dts.
>>>
>>
>> It is part of the host board DTS yes, but the connector must have
>> a way to set the pinmux configuration according what the detected
>> expansion board expects.
>>
>>> The physical connector does not change the way that pinmuxing
>>> works. It is just the same as if there were wires physically
>>> connected (soldered) between the daughter board and the main
>>> board.
>>>
>>
>> The physical properties of the pin of the connector do not change.
>>
>> However the routing of functions in the SoC do change.
>>
>> By default most of the pins on the connector are HiZ or set to input when
>> no expansion board is connected. The only fixed function pins that are
>> known and configured by the host board dts are those that are used by
>> the host board’s identification scheme (i.e. I2C EEPROM, set of GPIO inputs
>> etc).
>>
>> When an expansion board is connected upon boot and probing of the the expansion
>> board manager device it will use a method that is using the configured detection
>> pins to identify it.
>>
>> After getting the ID it is going to find a corresponding overlay to apply.
>>
>> This overlay will have to configure each pin accordingly.
>>
>> It is perfectly for a pin on a connector to be a GPIO output for expansion
>> board A, I2C bus SDA for board B, etc...
>>
>> So there has to be a way to get the pinmux configuration according to the
>> required connection function on each pin in use.
>
> Again, this is exactly the same concept as if the daughter board was soldered
> directly to the host board with no connector involved. The pinmux
> configuration has nothing to do with the physical connector, it is already
> described by the pinmux information in the host board .dtb. The connector
> node in the host .dtb does not need to duplicate any of that information.
>
> There already is a pinmux mechanism in place to choose which of the
> possible alternative uses of a set of pins is in use at any point
> in time. The choice of active functionality can be changed at
> any time.
>
> The pinmux configuration is already in place in the host board .dtb.
> The host board .dtb connector node only provides a mapping to what
> other nodes have hardware blocks that have signals that are routed
> to the physical connector. There is no need for the connector node
> to be concerned with any of the details of those other nodes -- the
> other nodes already specify the details.
>
The mechanism to choose which of the possible alternative uses is
geared to select between a different set of configuration settings
for the same device. I.e. “default” -> working configuration, “powersave” ->
put the pins in power save mode, etc.
I get what you’re saying but the details about pinmuxing are the killer.
Can you please spend some time and come up with an example which we can
use as a basis for discussion?
>>>> In reality there are may be many possible option of the same
>>>> hardware block (spi/i2c) to be routed to different pins on the
>>>> connector.
>>>>
>>>> You might get by if you have a number of selectable pre-canned
>>>> spi configuration that are selected.
>>>
>>> Again, just the same as if the connector did not exist and
>>> everything is hardwired.
>>>
>>> The connector node for the host board would contain a node for
>>> each of the alternative uses of the pins.
>>>
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>>
>>>> For instance if there are two spi controllers each of which have
>>>> two different pinout options on the connector you would address
>>>> each as a different spi controller on the connector, but then
>>>> you’d end up with
>>>>
>>>> spi_connector_0 -> spi_0_mux_0
>>>> spi_connector_1 -> spi_0_mux_1
>>>> spi_connector_2 -> spi_1_mux_0
>>>> spi_connector_3 -> spi_1_mux_1
>>>
>>> Yes. But again, exactly the same as if the daughter board was
>>> hard wired with no intervening physical connector.
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>
>>>> It gets hairy though pretty fast with modern SoCs with extensive
>>>> muxing options.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The result is that the overlay fixup for spi1 on the cape will
>>>>> relocate the spi1 node to /connector_1 in the host tree, so
>>>>> this does not solve the connector linkage yet:
>>>>>
>>>>> -- chunk from the decompiled board_with_connector.dtb:
>>>>>
>>>>> __symbols__ {
>>>>> connector_1 = "/connector_1";
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> -- chunk from the decompiled spi_codec_overlay_with_connector.dtb:
>>>>>
>>>>> fragment@0 {
>>>>> target = <0xffffffff>;
>>>>> __overlay__ {
>>>>> spi1 {
>>>>> codec@1 {
>>>>> compatible = "ti,tlv320aic26";
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>> __fixups__ {
>>>>> connector_1 = "/fragment@0:target:0";
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> #----- magic new dtc syntax
>>>>>
>>>>> What I really want is some way to tell dtc that I want to do one
>>>>> level of dereferencing when resolving the path of device nodes
>>>>> contained by the connector node in the overlay dts.
>>>>>
>>>>> The exact syntax does not matter here, I am just trying to get the
>>>>> concept. I will add the not yet implemented dtc feature of
>>>>> "/connector/" to the connector node in both the tree dts and the
>>>>> overlay dts, and show how the output of dtc would change. The
>>>>> "/connector/" directive tells dtc that for a base dts (hand
>>>>> waving how it knows base vs overlay dts file) to look into
>>>>> each node at that level and determine what other node it
>>>>> maps to (again, hand waving, in this example just to
>>>>> show the linkage, I have hard coded both the path and the
>>>>> phandle of the target node that the connector child node
>>>>> maps to). The "/connector/" directive tells dtc that for
>>>>> an overlay dts (again hand waving) to provide a fixup for
>>>>> each child node.
>>>>>
>>>>> $ cat board_with_connector_v2.dts
>>>>> /dts-v1/;
>>>>>
>>>>> / {
>>>>> #address-cells = < 1 >;
>>>>> #size-cells = < 1 >;
>>>>>
>>>>> tree_1: soc@0 {
>>>>> reg = <0x0 0x0>;
>>>>>
>>>>> spi_1: spi1 {
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> connector_1: connector_1 {
>>>>> /connector/;
>>>>> spi1 {
>>>>> target_phandle = <&spi_1>;
>>>>> target_path = "/soc/spi1";
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> &spi_1 {
>>>>> ethernet-switch@0 {
>>>>> compatible = "micrel,ks8995m";
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> $ cat spi_codec_overlay_with_connector_v2.dts
>>>>>
>>>>> /dts-v1/;
>>>>>
>>>>> /plugin/;
>>>>>
>>>>> &connector_1 {
>>>>> /connector/;
>>>>> spi1 {
>>>>> codec@1 {
>>>>> compatible = "ti,tlv320aic26";
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> -- chunk from the decompiled board_with_connector_v2.dtb:
>>>>>
>>>>> __symbols__ {
>>>>> connector_1 {
>>>>> spi1 = "/soc@0/spi1";
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> -- chunk from the decompiled spi_codec_overlay_with_connector_v2.dtb:
>>>>>
>>>>> / {
>>>>>
>>>>> fragment@0 {
>>>>> target = <0xffffffff>;
>>>>> __overlay__ {
>>>>> spi1 {
>>>>> codec@1 {
>>>>> compatible = "ti,tlv320aic26";
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>> __fixups__ {
>>>>> connector_1 {
>>>>> spi1 = "/fragment@0/__overlay__:spi1:0";
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course the overlay loader will also have to be modified to understand
>>>>> the new information.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exact format of the __symbols__ and __fixups__ are implementation
>>>>> details, I am just trying to present the model.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ignoring device tree source syntax and dtc implementation issues, does
>>>>> this conceptual model look more straight forward and a better direction
>>>>> for how to represent connectors?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We could use dtc sugar to get to something more elegant, I need some time
>>>> to think about this a bit longer.
>>>>
>>>>> -Frank
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> — Pantelis
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> — Pantelis
Regards
— Pantelis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
