| Message ID | 1523956215-28154-13-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ARM: dts: DT overlay support infra + some data | expand |
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:10:14PM +0300, Tero Kristo wrote: > Add FIT image description file for dra71-evm, and the available > configurations for it. > > Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> > --- > arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/dra71-evm.its | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/dra71-evm.its > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/dra71-evm.its b/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/dra71-evm.its > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..8dc53cb > --- /dev/null > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/dra71-evm.its > @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ > +/dts-v1/; > + > +/ { > + description = "DRA71x-evm"; > + #address-cells = <1>; > + > + images { > + kernel@1 { > + description = "Linux kernel"; > + data = /incbin/("../../zImage"); > + type = "kernel"; > + arch = "arm"; > + os = "linux"; > + compression = "none"; > + load = <0x82000000>; > + entry = <0x82000000>; > + }; > + fdt@1 { > + description = "DRA71x-evm"; > + data = /incbin/("dra71-evm.dtb"); > + type = "flat_dt"; > + arch = "arm"; > + compression = "none"; > + load = <0x83000000>; > + }; > + fdt@2 { > + description = "DRA71x-evm LCD"; > + data = /incbin/("dra71-evm-lcd-auo-g101evn01.0.dtbo"); > + type = "flat_dt"; > + arch = "arm"; > + compression = "none"; > + load = <0x83100000>; > + }; > + fdt@3 { > + description = "DRA71x-evm NAND"; > + data = /incbin/("dra71-evm-nand.dtbo"); > + type = "flat_dt"; > + arch = "arm"; > + compression = "none"; > + load = <0x83200000>; > + }; > + }; > + > + configurations { > + default = "dra71-evm"; > + dra71-evm { > + description = "DRA71x-evm"; > + kernel = "kernel@1"; > + fdt = "fdt@1"; > + }; > + dra71-evm-lcd-auo-g101evn01.0 { > + description = "DRA71x-evm with LCD overlay"; > + kernel = "kernel@1"; > + fdt = "fdt@1", "fdt@2"; > + }; > + dra71-evm-nand { > + description = "DRA71x-evm with NAND overlay"; > + kernel = "kernel@1"; > + fdt = "fdt@1", "fdt@3"; > + }; This strikes me as really horrid and inflexible. Consider a platform where you have multiple choices, each one independent - for example, you may have the selection of two base DT files depending on the SoC. Then you may have four board-level DT overlays to choose from. Then you may have a selection of overlays depending on what hardware is connected (eg, whether a camera is connected and what type of camera, whether a LVDS panel is connected and what it is, etc.) Before considering the optional hardware, you already have 8 different combinations, and that multiplies up each time there is another variable to consider. Exhaustively listing each combination of kernel, base dtb and overlays is not practical in such a scenario, and if this is what FIT requires, FIT is not fit for purpose. -- Russell King -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 17/04/18 12:29, Russell King wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:10:14PM +0300, Tero Kristo wrote: >> Add FIT image description file for dra71-evm, and the available >> configurations for it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> >> --- >> arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/dra71-evm.its | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/dra71-evm.its >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/dra71-evm.its b/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/dra71-evm.its >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..8dc53cb >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/dra71-evm.its >> @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ >> +/dts-v1/; >> + >> +/ { >> + description = "DRA71x-evm"; >> + #address-cells = <1>; >> + >> + images { >> + kernel@1 { >> + description = "Linux kernel"; >> + data = /incbin/("../../zImage"); >> + type = "kernel"; >> + arch = "arm"; >> + os = "linux"; >> + compression = "none"; >> + load = <0x82000000>; >> + entry = <0x82000000>; >> + }; >> + fdt@1 { >> + description = "DRA71x-evm"; >> + data = /incbin/("dra71-evm.dtb"); >> + type = "flat_dt"; >> + arch = "arm"; >> + compression = "none"; >> + load = <0x83000000>; >> + }; >> + fdt@2 { >> + description = "DRA71x-evm LCD"; >> + data = /incbin/("dra71-evm-lcd-auo-g101evn01.0.dtbo"); >> + type = "flat_dt"; >> + arch = "arm"; >> + compression = "none"; >> + load = <0x83100000>; >> + }; >> + fdt@3 { >> + description = "DRA71x-evm NAND"; >> + data = /incbin/("dra71-evm-nand.dtbo"); >> + type = "flat_dt"; >> + arch = "arm"; >> + compression = "none"; >> + load = <0x83200000>; >> + }; >> + }; >> + >> + configurations { >> + default = "dra71-evm"; >> + dra71-evm { >> + description = "DRA71x-evm"; >> + kernel = "kernel@1"; >> + fdt = "fdt@1"; >> + }; >> + dra71-evm-lcd-auo-g101evn01.0 { >> + description = "DRA71x-evm with LCD overlay"; >> + kernel = "kernel@1"; >> + fdt = "fdt@1", "fdt@2"; >> + }; >> + dra71-evm-nand { >> + description = "DRA71x-evm with NAND overlay"; >> + kernel = "kernel@1"; >> + fdt = "fdt@1", "fdt@3"; >> + }; > > This strikes me as really horrid and inflexible. > > Consider a platform where you have multiple choices, each one > independent - for example, you may have the selection of two base > DT files depending on the SoC. Then you may have four board-level > DT overlays to choose from. Then you may have a selection of > overlays depending on what hardware is connected (eg, whether a > camera is connected and what type of camera, whether a LVDS panel > is connected and what it is, etc.) > > Before considering the optional hardware, you already have 8 > different combinations, and that multiplies up each time there > is another variable to consider. > > Exhaustively listing each combination of kernel, base dtb and > overlays is not practical in such a scenario, and if this is what > FIT requires, FIT is not fit for purpose. > This specific dra71-evm is rather a poor example, as we have built the available configs as separate config entries due to limited amount of them. In typical setup, you can boot a large number of different configs via: bootm 0x82000000#dra71-evm#nand#lcd-auo-g101evn01.0 ... assuming the configs were named like that, and assuming they would be compatible with each other. The am57xx-evm example provided is better, as you can chain the different cameras to the available evm configs. -Tero -- Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki. Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> [180417 09:36]: > In typical setup, you can boot a large number of different configs via: > > bootm 0x82000000#dra71-evm#nand#lcd-auo-g101evn01.0 > > ... assuming the configs were named like that, and assuming they would be > compatible with each other. The am57xx-evm example provided is better, as > you can chain the different cameras to the available evm configs. Why not just do it in the bootloader to put together the dtb? Then for external devices, you could just pass info on the kernel cmdline with lcd=foo camera=bar if they cannot be detected over I2C. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 17/04/18 17:49, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> [180417 09:36]: >> In typical setup, you can boot a large number of different configs via: >> >> bootm 0x82000000#dra71-evm#nand#lcd-auo-g101evn01.0 >> >> ... assuming the configs were named like that, and assuming they would be >> compatible with each other. The am57xx-evm example provided is better, as >> you can chain the different cameras to the available evm configs. > > Why not just do it in the bootloader to put together the dtb? > > Then for external devices, you could just pass info on the > kernel cmdline with lcd=foo camera=bar if they cannot be > detected over I2C. (Added Linux ARM list to CC, this was not part of the original delivery.) Ok trying to resurrect this thread a bit. Is there any kind of consensus how things like this should be handled? Should we add the DT overlay files to kernel tree or not? Should we add any kind of build infra to kernel tree, and at what level would this be? Just DT overlay file building support, and drop the FIT build support as was proposed in this RFC series or...? U-boot can obviously parse the base DTB + overlay DTB:s into a single DTB, but this is somewhat clumsy approach and is relatively error prone to get it right. Building the FIT image post kernel build would also be possible, but who would be doing this, is there any need to get this done in generic manner or shall we just add SoC vendor specific tools for this? -Tero -- Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki. Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 09:57:54AM +0300, Tero Kristo wrote: > On 17/04/18 17:49, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> [180417 09:36]: > > > In typical setup, you can boot a large number of different configs via: > > > > > > bootm 0x82000000#dra71-evm#nand#lcd-auo-g101evn01.0 > > > > > > ... assuming the configs were named like that, and assuming they would be > > > compatible with each other. The am57xx-evm example provided is better, as > > > you can chain the different cameras to the available evm configs. > > > > Why not just do it in the bootloader to put together the dtb? > > > > Then for external devices, you could just pass info on the > > kernel cmdline with lcd=foo camera=bar if they cannot be > > detected over I2C. > > (Added Linux ARM list to CC, this was not part of the original delivery.) > > Ok trying to resurrect this thread a bit. Is there any kind of consensus how > things like this should be handled? Should we add the DT overlay files to > kernel tree or not? IMO, yes. > Should we add any kind of build infra to kernel tree, and at what level > would this be? Just DT overlay file building support, and drop the FIT build > support as was proposed in this RFC series or...? I think I mentioned this already, but I expect that this is going to cause a number of conversions of dtsi + dtsi -> dtb into base dts and overlay(s) dts files. In doing so, we still need to be able to build the original, full dtb. > U-boot can obviously parse the base DTB + overlay DTB:s into a single DTB, > but this is somewhat clumsy approach and is relatively error prone to get it > right. Why? How is the kernel better? > Building the FIT image post kernel build would also be possible, but who > would be doing this, is there any need to get this done in generic manner or > shall we just add SoC vendor specific tools for this? I'll tell you up front, I'm not a fan of FIT image (nor uImage, Android boot image, $bootloader image). If you want a collection of files and some configuration data, use a filesystem and a text file. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 22/05/18 23:01, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 09:57:54AM +0300, Tero Kristo wrote: >> On 17/04/18 17:49, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> * Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> [180417 09:36]: >>>> In typical setup, you can boot a large number of different configs via: >>>> >>>> bootm 0x82000000#dra71-evm#nand#lcd-auo-g101evn01.0 >>>> >>>> ... assuming the configs were named like that, and assuming they would be >>>> compatible with each other. The am57xx-evm example provided is better, as >>>> you can chain the different cameras to the available evm configs. >>> >>> Why not just do it in the bootloader to put together the dtb? >>> >>> Then for external devices, you could just pass info on the >>> kernel cmdline with lcd=foo camera=bar if they cannot be >>> detected over I2C. >> >> (Added Linux ARM list to CC, this was not part of the original delivery.) >> >> Ok trying to resurrect this thread a bit. Is there any kind of consensus how >> things like this should be handled? Should we add the DT overlay files to >> kernel tree or not? > > IMO, yes. > >> Should we add any kind of build infra to kernel tree, and at what level >> would this be? Just DT overlay file building support, and drop the FIT build >> support as was proposed in this RFC series or...? > > I think I mentioned this already, but I expect that this is going to > cause a number of conversions of dtsi + dtsi -> dtb into base dts and > overlay(s) dts files. In doing so, we still need to be able to build the > original, full dtb. So you mean like breaking apart the existing .dts files? Are there any plans to get that done (I know the android folks talk about this but I don't like their idea.) If we do the split, how are we going to determine which dts + overlay files are required to get a specific DTB done? I actually wrote a tool for this purpose which parses the FIT image configurations and generates plain dtb files out of the info there if needed, but assuming FIT is abandoned then what...? > >> U-boot can obviously parse the base DTB + overlay DTB:s into a single DTB, >> but this is somewhat clumsy approach and is relatively error prone to get it >> right. > > Why? How is the kernel better? I am mostly speaking about runtime applying of the overlays. If done build time, it is obviously on same level. If you apply the base DTS + overlays from u-boot prompt, it is not too much fun, and if there are any failures it just won't work, but don't really tell you why not. > >> Building the FIT image post kernel build would also be possible, but who >> would be doing this, is there any need to get this done in generic manner or >> shall we just add SoC vendor specific tools for this? > > I'll tell you up front, I'm not a fan of FIT image (nor uImage, > Android boot image, $bootloader image). If you want a collection of > files and some configuration data, use a filesystem and a text file. Ok, thanks for your frank comments. I believe based on this feedback I'll try to modify this series into bare minimal overlay support to kernel, and have the post processing done elsewhere (either u-boot build or possibly completely separate tool.) -Tero -- Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki. Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:55 AM, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> wrote: > On 22/05/18 23:01, Rob Herring wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 09:57:54AM +0300, Tero Kristo wrote: >>> >>> On 17/04/18 17:49, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>> >>>> * Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> [180417 09:36]: >>>>> >>>>> In typical setup, you can boot a large number of different configs via: >>>>> >>>>> bootm 0x82000000#dra71-evm#nand#lcd-auo-g101evn01.0 >>>>> >>>>> ... assuming the configs were named like that, and assuming they would >>>>> be >>>>> compatible with each other. The am57xx-evm example provided is better, >>>>> as >>>>> you can chain the different cameras to the available evm configs. >>>> >>>> >>>> Why not just do it in the bootloader to put together the dtb? >>>> >>>> Then for external devices, you could just pass info on the >>>> kernel cmdline with lcd=foo camera=bar if they cannot be >>>> detected over I2C. >>> >>> >>> (Added Linux ARM list to CC, this was not part of the original delivery.) >>> >>> Ok trying to resurrect this thread a bit. Is there any kind of consensus >>> how >>> things like this should be handled? Should we add the DT overlay files to >>> kernel tree or not? >> >> >> IMO, yes. >> >>> Should we add any kind of build infra to kernel tree, and at what level >>> would this be? Just DT overlay file building support, and drop the FIT >>> build >>> support as was proposed in this RFC series or...? >> >> >> I think I mentioned this already, but I expect that this is going to >> cause a number of conversions of dtsi + dtsi -> dtb into base dts and >> overlay(s) dts files. In doing so, we still need to be able to build the >> original, full dtb. > > > So you mean like breaking apart the existing .dts files? Are there any plans > to get that done (I know the android folks talk about this but I don't like > their idea.) If we do the split, how are we going to determine which dts + > overlay files are required to get a specific DTB done? I actually wrote a > tool for this purpose which parses the FIT image configurations and > generates plain dtb files out of the info there if needed, but assuming FIT > is abandoned then what...? There aren't any plans that I'm aware of. I'm just assuming there are some cases in the tree. It would just be some additional build rules: board-kit.dtb: soc-som.dtb expansion-board.dtbo fdtoverlay -o $@ -i $^ We'd need to come up with some way to express the input and output files in a kbuild way. Perhaps similar to how multiple module files are done. Even if you are adding new platforms, having the above would still be good. It captures what base the overlays apply to and tests that applying actually works (rather than leaving that for the user to do in the bootloader). FIT images also have or need that information, so perhaps we can define a format that works as input for both kbuild and FIT images. >>> U-boot can obviously parse the base DTB + overlay DTB:s into a single >>> DTB, >>> but this is somewhat clumsy approach and is relatively error prone to get >>> it >>> right. >> >> >> Why? How is the kernel better? > > > I am mostly speaking about runtime applying of the overlays. If done build > time, it is obviously on same level. If you apply the base DTS + overlays > from u-boot prompt, it is not too much fun, and if there are any failures it > just won't work, but don't really tell you why not. Runtime, but still at boot time, right? How is the kernel going to have better error handling? Is libfdt error handling worse than the kernel's overlay code? I do think we need to standardize how we tell bootloaders what overlays to apply. I expect that we'll do that as part of EBBR spec[1] though that is not part of the immediate focus. Rob [1] https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> [180523 05:58]: > On 22/05/18 23:01, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 09:57:54AM +0300, Tero Kristo wrote: > > > Ok trying to resurrect this thread a bit. Is there any kind of consensus how > > > things like this should be handled? Should we add the DT overlay files to > > > kernel tree or not? > > > > IMO, yes. I too agree the overlay files should be in the kernel rather than people having to try to figure out where to find them. No idea how we'll verify they'll build though :) Maybe we just need randconfig support for DT overlay files too? Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 05/22/18 13:01, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 09:57:54AM +0300, Tero Kristo wrote: >> On 17/04/18 17:49, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> * Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> [180417 09:36]: >>>> In typical setup, you can boot a large number of different configs via: >>>> >>>> bootm 0x82000000#dra71-evm#nand#lcd-auo-g101evn01.0 >>>> >>>> ... assuming the configs were named like that, and assuming they would be >>>> compatible with each other. The am57xx-evm example provided is better, as >>>> you can chain the different cameras to the available evm configs. >>> >>> Why not just do it in the bootloader to put together the dtb? >>> >>> Then for external devices, you could just pass info on the >>> kernel cmdline with lcd=foo camera=bar if they cannot be >>> detected over I2C. >> >> (Added Linux ARM list to CC, this was not part of the original delivery.) >> >> Ok trying to resurrect this thread a bit. Is there any kind of consensus how >> things like this should be handled? Should we add the DT overlay files to >> kernel tree or not? > > IMO, yes. Agreed. > >> Should we add any kind of build infra to kernel tree, and at what level >> would this be? Just DT overlay file building support, and drop the FIT build >> support as was proposed in this RFC series or...? > > I think I mentioned this already, but I expect that this is going to > cause a number of conversions of dtsi + dtsi -> dtb into base dts and > overlay(s) dts files. In doing so, we still need to be able to build the > original, full dtb. > >> U-boot can obviously parse the base DTB + overlay DTB:s into a single DTB, >> but this is somewhat clumsy approach and is relatively error prone to get it >> right. > > Why? How is the kernel better? > >> Building the FIT image post kernel build would also be possible, but who >> would be doing this, is there any need to get this done in generic manner or >> shall we just add SoC vendor specific tools for this? > > I'll tell you up front, I'm not a fan of FIT image (nor uImage, > Android boot image, $bootloader image). If you want a collection of > files and some configuration data, use a filesystem and a text file. My gut feel is that using a filesystem and a text file is the easier way to create the boot info. But that also makes applying the overlay(s) during early Linux boot (at the point of FDT unflattening) impractical (can't access the file system without a driver, the driver depends on the devicetree, the devicetree depends upon the overlay). > > Rob > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:05:37AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 05/22/18 13:01, Rob Herring wrote: > > I'll tell you up front, I'm not a fan of FIT image (nor uImage, > > Android boot image, $bootloader image). If you want a collection of > > files and some configuration data, use a filesystem and a text file. Me neither. > My gut feel is that using a filesystem and a text file is the easier way > to create the boot info. But that also makes applying the overlay(s) > during early Linux boot (at the point of FDT unflattening) impractical > (can't access the file system without a driver, the driver depends on > the devicetree, the devicetree depends upon the overlay). Why do you want to apply overlays during the kernel boot? The boot loader should be providing the kernel with the merged DT to describe the system that the kernel is running on - it's not the kernel's job to put that together. The whole point of DT is to make the kernel _less_ tied to the hardware and more generic. If we're going to introduce an entirely new set of drivers into the kernel to "probe" the hardware to determine which overlays are required, then that's really defeating the purpose of DT. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 05/29/18 10:33, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:05:37AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 05/22/18 13:01, Rob Herring wrote: >>> I'll tell you up front, I'm not a fan of FIT image (nor uImage, >>> Android boot image, $bootloader image). If you want a collection of >>> files and some configuration data, use a filesystem and a text file. > > Me neither. > >> My gut feel is that using a filesystem and a text file is the easier way >> to create the boot info. But that also makes applying the overlay(s) >> during early Linux boot (at the point of FDT unflattening) impractical >> (can't access the file system without a driver, the driver depends on >> the devicetree, the devicetree depends upon the overlay). > > Why do you want to apply overlays during the kernel boot? The boot > loader should be providing the kernel with the merged DT to describe > the system that the kernel is running on - it's not the kernel's > job to put that together. I would much prefer that overlays get applied before the unflattened devicetree is made available to the kernel instead of applying overlays late in the boot (after many susbsystems and drivers are initialized) or after boot. If overlays are applied before the unflattened devicetree is made available to the kernel then subsystems and drivers do not have to be aware of the possibility of the data in the devicetree changing instead of being invariant. (I will call this "apply early overlays" later in this email.) There are use cases of overlays where the overlay is not available until late in the boot, or after the boot completes. I am not suggesting that those use cases be ignored. That is a completely different conversation. If overlays are applied before the unflattened devicetree is made available to the kernel, there are at least two obvious methods (and I can think of at least one more) -- either the kernel does it or the bootloader does it. I do not see either of the two as being the obvious and only correct choice. If the kernel does it, then there is no need for multiple bootloaders to implement the same code. If the bootloaders do it, then there is no need for multiple kernels (Linux, BSD, etc) to implement the same code. I do not have a strong opinion about whether the bootloaders or the kernels are a better place to apply early overlays. > The whole point of DT is to make the kernel _less_ tied to the hardware > and more generic. If we're going to introduce an entirely new set of > drivers into the kernel to "probe" the hardware to determine which > overlays are required, then that's really defeating the purpose of DT. If you read my circular dependency sentence carefully, I said a kernel driver is impractical for the task of getting the overlay. So I agree. If the kernel applies the overlay, an alternative to drivers is that the kernel could receive the overlay(s) in a similar manner as the method it currently receives the base devicetree. (The overlay(s) could be appended to the base devicetree, a wrapper could be placed around the base devicetree and the overlay(s), or some other implementation. There are multiple ways to achieve the same result.) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:45:12PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > If the kernel applies the overlay, an alternative to drivers is that the > kernel could receive the overlay(s) in a similar manner as the method it > currently receives the base devicetree. (The overlay(s) could be > appended to the base devicetree, a wrapper could be placed around the No wrappers, sorry. We already have too many places in the Linux kernel and its decompressor that try to work out whether a device tree or ATAGs are present and how large, and that is done in assembly code. We don't need more complexity to deal with some kind of wrapping of device trees as well. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/dra71-evm.its b/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/dra71-evm.its new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8dc53cb --- /dev/null +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/dra71-evm.its @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ +/dts-v1/; + +/ { + description = "DRA71x-evm"; + #address-cells = <1>; + + images { + kernel@1 { + description = "Linux kernel"; + data = /incbin/("../../zImage"); + type = "kernel"; + arch = "arm"; + os = "linux"; + compression = "none"; + load = <0x82000000>; + entry = <0x82000000>; + }; + fdt@1 { + description = "DRA71x-evm"; + data = /incbin/("dra71-evm.dtb"); + type = "flat_dt"; + arch = "arm"; + compression = "none"; + load = <0x83000000>; + }; + fdt@2 { + description = "DRA71x-evm LCD"; + data = /incbin/("dra71-evm-lcd-auo-g101evn01.0.dtbo"); + type = "flat_dt"; + arch = "arm"; + compression = "none"; + load = <0x83100000>; + }; + fdt@3 { + description = "DRA71x-evm NAND"; + data = /incbin/("dra71-evm-nand.dtbo"); + type = "flat_dt"; + arch = "arm"; + compression = "none"; + load = <0x83200000>; + }; + }; + + configurations { + default = "dra71-evm"; + dra71-evm { + description = "DRA71x-evm"; + kernel = "kernel@1"; + fdt = "fdt@1"; + }; + dra71-evm-lcd-auo-g101evn01.0 { + description = "DRA71x-evm with LCD overlay"; + kernel = "kernel@1"; + fdt = "fdt@1", "fdt@2"; + }; + dra71-evm-nand { + description = "DRA71x-evm with NAND overlay"; + kernel = "kernel@1"; + fdt = "fdt@1", "fdt@3"; + }; + }; +};
Add FIT image description file for dra71-evm, and the available configurations for it. Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> --- arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/dra71-evm.its | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+) create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/dra71-evm.its -- 1.9.1 -- Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki. Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html