From: swarren@wwwdotorg•org (Stephen Warren)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH dtc] C-based DT schema checker integrated into dtc
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:50:38 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <527816AE.1080508@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1704730.RnIqE1USnv@wuerfel>
On 11/04/2013 01:43 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 04 November 2013 09:37:07 Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> The basic idea is to extend 'devres' to automatically register
>>> all the resources (registers, irq, dma, gpio, pinctrl, clk, regulator, ...)
>>> and simple properties before the ->probe() callback is even called,
>>> based on a per-driver data structure that describes them, and that
>>> can be easily parsed by an external tool.
>>
>> I had suggested that while talking to someone at the kernel summit,
>> basically each driver supplies functions like:
>>
>> 1) ACPI -> platform data or resources converter
>> 2) DT -> platform or resources data converter
>> 3) anything else -> platform or resources data converter
>> 4) probe()
>
> FWIW, here is a very early draft of the interfaces I have in mind.
> At the moment the implementation is DT focused, but that should
> be extensible to ACPI if necessary.
>
> At the end, you can see how a probe function could end up looking.
> I'm sure this is full of bugs at the moment, incomplete and needs
> to be moved into actual header and C files, but it should be enough
> to get across where I'm getting with this, and to see if anyone
> thinks it's a really bad idea or won't actually work.
This looks interesting. The simple cases end up quite simple. I wonder
what's the best way to handle the more complex cases; more on that below.
> int devm_probe_gpio(struct device *dev, const struct devm_probe *probe)
...
> #define DEVM_GPIO(_struct, _member, _index) { \
...
> #define DEVM_GPIO_NAMED(_struct, _member, _name) { \
Should those save the GPIO flags too? Or, do we assume that gpiod-based
GPIOs already handle the flags inside the gpiod API?
> /*
> * this lists all properties we access from the driver. The list
> * is interpreted by devm_probe() and can be programmatically
> * verified to match the binding.
> */
> static const struct devm_probe foo_probe_list[] = {
> DEVM_ALLOC(foo_priv),
> DEVM_IOMAP(foo_priv, regs, 0, 0),
> DEVM_PROP_BOOL(foo_priv, oldstyle_dma, "foo,oldstyle-dma"),
I wonder if it makes sense to handle pure data here, or whether this
only makes sense for resources/services that are provided by some other
device?
I guess it's nice for all resources and configuration to come through to
probe() in the same way, but I rather wonder how we'd handle bindings
that have large custom (driver-specific) tables of data. Would be simply
defer such things to custom code in probe()? If so, it feels slightly
inconsistent to handle some data in the probe_list[] and some in code in
probe(). Still, I guess there's something to be said for keeping the
simple cases simple.
> DEVM_DMA_SLAVE(foo_priv, rxdma, "rx");
> DEVM_DMA_SLAVE(foo_priv, txdma, "tx");
> DEVM_GPIO(foo_priv, gpio, 0);
> DEVM_IRQ_NAMED(foo_priv, irq, foo_irq_handler, "fifo", IRQF_SHARED),
What about the case where some resources are optional, or only required
based on the values of certain other properties? I suppose that probe()
could call devm_probe() multiple times, with different probe_list[]s,
based on whatever algorithm they need.
> {},
> };
>
> static int foo_probe(struct platform_device *dev)
> {
> int ret;
>
> ret = devm_probe(dev->dev, foo_probe_list);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> return bar_subsystem_register(&foo_bar_ops, dev);
> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-04 21:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-24 21:51 [RFC PATCH dtc] C-based DT schema checker integrated into dtc Stephen Warren
2013-10-24 23:43 ` Grant Likely
2013-10-25 4:00 ` Kumar Gala
2013-10-25 14:44 ` Stephen Warren
2013-10-25 15:21 ` Jon Loeliger
2013-10-25 17:38 ` Rob Herring
2013-10-25 23:11 ` David Gibson
2013-11-03 23:15 ` Tomasz Figa
2013-11-03 23:26 ` Tomasz Figa
2013-11-04 9:28 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-11-04 12:31 ` Tomasz Figa
2013-11-04 16:37 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-04 18:57 ` Olof Johansson
2013-11-04 20:43 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-11-04 21:29 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-11-04 21:43 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-04 22:21 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-11-05 12:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-11-05 8:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-11-05 18:03 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-11-05 18:48 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-11-05 19:12 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-11-05 19:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-11-05 19:58 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-11-05 20:17 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-11-05 20:36 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2013-11-04 21:50 ` Stephen Warren [this message]
2013-11-05 8:22 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-11-06 12:17 ` Thierry Reding
2013-11-04 14:28 ` David Gibson
2013-11-04 16:42 ` Stephen Warren
2013-10-28 10:17 ` David Gibson
2013-10-31 21:13 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-01 13:24 ` David Gibson
2013-10-25 23:29 ` David Gibson
2013-10-31 21:11 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-10 11:00 ` David Gibson
2013-11-12 22:06 ` Stephen Warren
2013-11-13 0:33 ` David Gibson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=527816AE.1080508@wwwdotorg.org \
--to=swarren@wwwdotorg$(echo .)org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox