On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 9:52 PM Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 4:54 AM AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
> <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Il 09/11/23 11:05, Chen-Yu Tsai ha scritto:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > This v2 series continues Doug's "of: device: Support 2nd sources of
> > > probeable but undiscoverable devices" [1] series, but follows the scheme
> > > suggested by Rob, marking all second source component device nodes
> > > as "fail-needs-probe-XXX", and having a hardware prober driver enable
> > > the one of them. I tried to include everyone from the original Cc: list.
> > > Please let me know if you would like to be dropped from future
> > > submissions.
> > >
> > >
> > > For the I2C component (touchscreens and trackpads) case from the
> > > original series, the hardware prober driver finds the particular
> > > class of device in the device tree, gets its parent I2C adapter,
> > > and tries to initiate a simple I2C read for each device under that
> > > I2C bus. When it finds one that responds, it considers that one
> > > present, marks it as "okay", and returns, letting the driver core
> > > actually probe the device.
> > >
> > > This works fine in most cases since these components are connected
> > > via ribbon cable and always have the same resources. The driver as
> > > implemented currently doesn't deal with regulators or GPIO pins,
> > > since in the existing device trees they are either always on for
> > > regulators, or have GPIO hogs or pinmux and pinconfig directly
> > > tied to the pin controller.
> > >
> > >
> > > Another case this driver could handle is selecting components based
> > > on some identifier passed in by the firmware. On Chromebooks we have
> > > a SKU ID which is inserted by the bootloader at
> > > /firmware/coreboot/sku-id. When a new combination of components is
> > > introduced, a new SKU ID is allocated to it. To have SKU ID based
> > > device trees, we would need to have one per SKU ID. This ends up
> > > increasing the number of device trees we have a lot. The recent
> > > MT8186 devices already have 10+10 SKUs [2], with possibly more to come.
> > >
> > > Instead, we could have just one device tree for each device, with
> > > component options listed and marked as "fail-needs-probe-XXX", and
> > > let the hardware prober enable one of them based on the given SKU ID.
> > > The driver will also fix up OF graph remote endpoints to point to the
> > > enabled component.
> > >
> > > The MT8186 Corsola series [2] can also benefit from this, though I
> > > haven't implemented anything yet.
> > >
> > >
> > > Patch 1 adds of_device_is_fail() for the new driver to use.
> > >
> > > Patch 2 implements the first case, probing the I2C bus for presence
> > > of components. This initial version targets the Hana Chromebooks.
> > >
> > > Patch 3 modifies the Hana device tree and marks the touchscreens
> > > and trackpads as "fail-needs-probe-XXX", ready for the driver to
> > > probe.
> > >
> > > Patch 4 adds a missing touchscreen variant to Hana.
> > >
> > > Patch 5 implements the second case, selectively enabling components
> > > based on the SKU ID. This initial version targets the Krane ChromeOS
> > > tablet, which has two possible MIPI DSI display panel options.
> > >
> > > Patch 6 drops Krane's SKU-specific compatible strings from the bindings.
> > >
> > > Patch 7 merges Krane's SKU-specific device trees into one, with the
> > > device tree now containing two possible panels. This unfortunately
> > > introduces a dtc warning:
> > >
> > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8183-kukui-krane.dts:81.13-83.6:
> > > Warning (graph_endpoint): /soc/dsi@14014000/panel2@0/port/endpoint:
> > > graph connection to node '/soc/dsi@14014000/ports/port/endpoint'
> > > is not bidirectional
> > >
> > >
> > > Please take a look.
> > >
> > > Johan, I'm not sure if this works as is for the Lenovo Thinkpad 13S
> > > case, since it looks like the trackpad shares the I2C bus with the
> > > keyboard.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > ChenYu
> > >
> > >
> > > Background as given in Doug's cover letter:
> > >
> > > Support for multiple "equivalent" sources for components (also known
> > > as second sourcing components) is a standard practice that helps keep
> > > cost down and also makes sure that if one component is unavailable due
> > > to a shortage that we don't need to stop production for the whole
> > > product.
> > >
> > > Some components are very easy to second source. eMMC, for instance, is
> > > fully discoverable and probable so you can stuff a wide variety of
> > > similar eMMC chips on your board and things will work without a hitch.
> > >
> > > Some components are more difficult to second source, specifically
> > > because it's difficult for software to probe what component is present
> > > on any given board. In cases like this software is provided
> > > supplementary information to help it, like a GPIO strap or a SKU ID
> > > programmed into an EEPROM. This helpful information can allow the
> > > bootloader to select a different device tree. The various different
> > > "SKUs" of different Chromebooks are examples of this.
> > >
> > > Some components are somewhere in between. These in-between components
> > > are the subject of this patch. Specifically, these components are
> > > easily "probeable" but not easily "discoverable".
> > >
> > > A good example of a probeable but undiscoverable device is an
> > > i2c-connected touchscreen or trackpad. Two separate components may be
> > > electrically compatible with each other and may have compatible power
> > > sequencing requirements but may require different software. If
> > > software is told about the different possible components (because it
> > > can't discover them), it can safely probe them to figure out which
> > > ones are present.
> > >
> > > On systems using device tree, if we want to tell the OS about all of
> > > the different components we need to list them all in the device
> > > tree. This leads to a problem. The multiple sources for components
> > > likely use the same resources (GPIOs, interrupts, regulators). If the
> > > OS tries to probe all of these components at the same time then it
> > > will detect a resource conflict and that's a fatal error.
> > >
> > > The fact that Linux can't handle these probeable but undiscoverable
> > > devices well has had a few consequences:
> > > 1. In some cases, we've abandoned the idea of second sourcing
> > > components for a given board, which increases cost / generates
> > > manufacturing headaches.
> > > 2. In some cases, we've been forced to add some sort of strapping /
> > > EEPROM to indicate which component is present. This adds difficulty
> > > to manufacturing / refurb processes.
> > > 3. In some cases, we've managed to make things work by the skin of our
> > > teeth through slightly hacky solutions. Specifically, if we remove
> > > the "pinctrl" entry from the various options then it won't
> > > conflict. Regulators inherently can have more than one consumer, so
> > > as long as there are no GPIOs involved in power sequencing and
> > > probing devices then things can work. This is how
> > > "sc8280xp-lenovo-thinkpad-x13s" works and also how
> > > "mt8173-elm-hana" works.
> > >
> > > End of background from Doug's cover letter.
> >
> > I think that using "status" is not a good idea, I find that confusing.
>
> "status" is what defines a device's state in terms of enabled,
> present, available. That's exactly what we're expressing here.
>
> Now, I do not think we should be mixing the device class (e.g.
> touchscreen) into status. I said this on v1, but apparently that was
> not listened to.
I must have missed it and only took in Doug's final response.
My code doesn't actually use the class in the status property though.
I will remove it and just keep "fail-needs-probe".
ChenYu
> >
> > Perhaps we could have a node like
> >
> > something {
> > device-class-one = <&device1>, <&device2>, <&device3>;
> > device-class-two = <&device4>, <&device5>, <&device6>;
> > }
> >
> > so that'd be more or less
> >
> > hw-prober {
> > trackpads = <&tp1>, <&tp2>;
> > keyboards = <&kb1>, <&kb2>;
> > touchscreens = <&ts1>, <&ts2>;
> > }
>
> No. That's more or less what v1 had.
>
> Rob
