On 01/15/18 12:29, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On Monday, 15 January 2018 22:12:33 EET Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 01/15/18 11:22, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> On Monday, 15 January 2018 21:12:44 EET Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>> On 01/15/18 09:09, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>> +Frank
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>> The internal LVDS encoders now have their own DT bindings. Before
>>>>>> switching the driver infrastructure to those new bindings, implement
>>>>>> backward-compatibility through live DT patching.
>>>>>
>>>>> Uhh, we just got rid of TI's patching and now adding this one. I guess
>>
>> Let me first answer the question that you ask later. You ask "Can we work
>> on this together to find a solution that would suit us both ?"
>>
>> My answer to that is emphatically YES. I will definitely work with you to
>> try to find a good solution.
>
> \o/
>
>>>> Please no. What we just got rid of was making it difficult for me to
>>>> make changes to the overlay infrastructure. There are issues with
>>>> overlays that need to be fixed before overlays become really usable.
>>>> I am about to propose the next change, which involves removing a
>>>> chunk of code that I will not be able to remove if this patch is
>>>> accepted (the proposal is awaiting me collecting some data about
>>>> the impact of the change, which I expect to complete this week).
>>
>> I should have thought just a little bit more before I hit send. The
>> situation is even worse than I wrote. One of the next steps (in
>> addition to what I wrote about above) is to change the overlay apply
>> function to accept a flattened device tree (FDT), not an expanded
>> device tree. In this changed model, the unflattened overlay is
>> not available to be modified before it is applied.
>
> That makes sense if we consider overlays to be immutable objects that we apply
> without offering a way to modify them. I won't challenge that API decision, as
> my use of an overlay here is a bit of a hack indeed.
>
>> It is important for the devicetree infrastructure to have ownership
>> of the FDT that is used to create the unflattened tree. (Notice
>> that in the proposed patch, rcar_du_of_get_overlay() follows the
>> TI example of doing a kmemdup of the blob (FDT), then uses the
>> copy for the unflatten. The kmemdup() in this case is to create
>> a persistent copy of the FDT.) The driver having ownership of
>> this copy, and having the ability to free it is one of the many
>> problems with the current overlay implementation.
>
> Yes, that's something I've identified as well. Lots of work has been done to
> clean up the OF core and we're clearly not done yet. I'm happy to see all the
> improvements you're working on.
>
>>>> Can you please handle both the old and new bindings through driver
>>>> code instead?
>>>
>>> I could, but it would be pointless. The point here is to allow cleanups in
>>> the driver. The LVDS encoder handling code is very intrusive in its
>>> current form and I need to get rid of it. There would be zero point in
>>> moving to the new infrastructure, as the main point is to get rid of the
>>> old code which prevents moving forward. As a consequence that would block
>>> new boards from receiving proper upstream support. An easy option is to
>>> break backward compatibility. I'm personally fine with that, but I assume
>>> other people would complain :-)
>>>
>>> I can, on the other hand, work with you to see how live DT patching could
>>> be implemented in this driver without blocking your code. When developing
>>> this patch series I start by patching the device tree manually without
>>> relying on overlays at all, but got blocked by the fact that I need to
>>> allocate phandles for new nodes I create. If there was an API to allocate
>>> an unused phandle I could avoid using the overlay infrastructure at all.
>>> Or there could be other
>>
>> It seems reasonable to provide a way to autogenerate a phandle (if
>> requested) by the devicetree code that creates a new node. Were you using
>> a function from drivers/of/dynamic.c to create the node?
>
> Not to allocate the node, no. I allocated the device_node structure manually
> with kzalloc(), and inserted it in the device tree with of_attach_node(). Is
> that the right approach ? I haven't been able to test the code as I stopped
> when I realized I couldn't allocate phandles.
>
>>> options I'm not thinking of as I don't know what the changes you're
>>> working on are. Can we work on this together to find a solution that
>>> would suit us both ?
>>
>> Again, yes, I would be glad to work with you on this.
>
> How would you like to proceed ? I can try the manual approach again but need
> information about how I could cleanly implement phandle allocation. I will
> likely then run into other issues for which I might need help.
Here are my first thoughts, based on 4.15-rc7:
Question to Rob and Frank: should of_attach_node() be called directly, or
should it be called indirectly by creating a change set that adds the node?
Frank's off the cuff answer (but would like to think more about it): since
the driver is modifying its own devicetree data, and thus no other entity
needs to be notified about the changes, there is no need to add the complexity
of using a change set.
The following is how of_attach_node() could be modified to dynamically create
a phandle on request.
of_attach_node()
Add parameter: int create_phandle
of_attach_node(): pass create_phandle to __of_attach_node().
Modify existing callers of of_attach_node(): use value of 0 (zero)
for create_phandle.
rcar caller of of_attach_node(): use value of 1 for create_phandle.
__of_attach_node()
Add parameter: int create_phandle
if (create_phandle)
- protect creating value of new phandle and inserting the node with
of_overlay_mutex_lock() / of_overlay_mutex_unlock()
- if phandle does not exist, then phandle = live_tree_max_phandle() + 1
Notice that there will not actually be a phandle property created for the
node. Instead the phandle value will only exist in the struct device_node.
We are trying to move in this direction for all phandles, but have not yet
gotten there.
Modify existing callers of __of_attach_node(): use value of 0 (zero)
for create_phandle.
(If a change set is used to add the node instead of calling
of_attach_node(), then the change set code would have to be modified to
expose the create_phandle parameter to of_changeset_attach_node() and
related code.)
-Frank
>
>>>>> it's necessary, but I'd like to know how long we need to keep this?
>>>>>
>>>>> How many overlays would you need if everything is static (i.e.
>>>>> removing all your fixup code)?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Patching is disabled and will be enabled along with support for the new
>>>>>> DT bindings in the DU driver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart
>>>>>> <laurent.pinchart+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Changes since v1:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Select OF_FLATTREE
>>>>>> - Compile LVDS DT bindings patch code when DRM_RCAR_LVDS is selected
>>>>>> - Update the SPDX headers to use GPL-2.0 instead of GPL-2.0-only
>>>>>> - Turn __dtb_rcar_du_of_lvds_(begin|end) from u8 to char
>>>>>> - Pass void begin and end pointers to rcar_du_of_get_overlay()
>>>>>> - Use of_get_parent() instead of accessing the parent pointer directly
>>>>>> - Find the LVDS endpoints nodes based on the LVDS node instead of the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> root of the overlay
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Update to the <soc>-lvds compatible string format
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/Kconfig | 2 +
>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/Makefile | 3 +-
>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_of.c | 451 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_of.h | 16 +
>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_of_lvds.dts | 82 +++++
>>>>>> 5 files changed, 553 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_of.c
>>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_of.h
>>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_of_lvds.dts
>>>
>>> [snip]
>
