[Ksummit-2013-discuss] ARM topic: Is DT on ARM the solution, or is there something better?
Russell King - ARM Linux
linux at arm.linux.org.uk
Sun Oct 20 23:11:34 UTC 2013
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 10:26:54PM +0100, Stephen Warren wrote:
> The only thing we've really moved out of the kernel is the exact IDs of
> which GPIOS, interrupts, I2C/SPI ports the devices are connected to; the
> simple stuff not the hard stuff. The code hasn't really been simplified
> by DT - if anything, it's more complicated since we now have to parse
> those values from DT rather than putting them into simple data-structures.
Here's my random thoughts this evening on DT, orientated mostly on a
problem area I've been paying attention to recently.
In some ways, DT has made things much harder. I don't know whether
you've taken a look at DRM and the various drivers we have under there,
it's quite a mess of unreliable code which is trying to bend the DRM
card based model to a DT based multi-device component based description
with lots of sub-drivers.
What DRM currently expects is a certain initialisation order: the main
drm_device structure is created by the DRM code, and then supplied to
the DRM driver to populate all the different parts of the "DRM card".
Once all parts of the card have been setup (the CRTCs, encoders,
connectors, etc) then some helpers can be initialised. Once the
helpers have been initialised, the "dimensions" of the "DRM card"
become rather fixed until the helper is torn down.
The problem is this: if you have a multi-driver based card, there is
no way to prevent any of those sub-drivers from being unbound from
their drivers at any time. module refcounts don't save you from this.
Meanwhile, (at the moment) you can't half-tear down a "DRM card" and
have it still in a usable state. The internals just don't allow for
it at present.
Yes, work can be put in to solve this problem, but it's being solved
because of a desire to bend the subsystem to the DT way of doing things.
That may or may not be the best idea. However, what I do know is that
there is now great pressure to "bend stuff so that it works with DT
at all costs". Evidence is the Exynos driver and the imx-drm driver.
Now, the flip side to this is that some DRM solutions include an I2C
device, which is itself a separate driver, and would appear to suffer
from this same problem. This is handled via the drm_encoder_slave
infrastructure. As it currently is written (ignoring DT) it get
around the problem by not actually using the driver model "properly".
If it were to, it would run into this same problem.
How would we sort this out pre-DT? We'd pass a chunk of platform data
into a driver to describe the various options: eg, whether we wanted
HDMI output, the I2C bus details of the DDC bus, etc., which results
in a simpler solution - though traditionally a driver specific solution.
However, "driver specific solution" is bad - always has been. What was
missed is that the platform datas should never have been specific to
any particular device. They should have been class specific. I tried
to do that with flash_platform_data for example - some people got the
idea, but the vast majority didn't.
What is clear to me is that there is no panacea "one size fits all"
approach to the problem of device driver bindings and turning them into
generic drivers. Everyone has their own pet ideas and solutions to
this. Some favour DT. Others favour other solutions.
At the end of the day, the question should be - what is the easiest
solution. In the case of DRM, it may well be that the easiest solution
is to have a translation layer which presents a DT multi-node
description (note the change in terminology: multi-node not multi-device)
to DRM as platform data so that DRM can preserve its "single card"
solution. Or whatever other translation layer is necessary for whatever
solution is chosen in the future.
There's much much more to the DRM vs DT problem than the above. In
- we have several driver specific solutions to this same problem
- on the balance of probabilities, their solutions are buggy in some
way, some more buggy than others.
I have one DRM driver which I've recently submitted to David Airlie
which I have *not* implemented DT support for and that is because I
don't want to solve this same problem in another driver specific way.
I'd rather the driver wasn't directly supportable by DT until there's
proper work in infrastructure than to create yet another driver
specific solution - or the DT mess is dealt with outside the main
driver. (I believe that has already been done by Sebastian...)
Other thoughts on DT... it's a pain in the backside as it's far too
easy to make a subtle mistake in a DT source file and have it "build"
to a blob. You can then spend hours trying to debug why something isn't
working, and it's very simply because you typo'd something. A recent
pintctrl-0 = <...>;
and then you start wondering why aren't I getting signals out from the
pins you want, and you start chasing around trying to find out if its
something that you haven't thought of, whether some setting in the
pin settings is wrong or whatever. You completely fail to notice the
additional 't' for hours and hours. Eventually, you start pasting it
onto IRC and at that point you spot the error.
You may laugh at that, but that's exactly what has happened - all
because the DT compiler is freeform - provided the strings look okay
to it, that's all it cares about. Whether the description is correct
for the device or not is outside of its concern.
I'm pretty certain that I won't be the only one who has gone through
this - and I'm probably not going to be the last.
We already know that "board firmware" has a tendency to be buggy. Well,
the DT compiler as it stands today does nothing what so ever to help
people make sure that what they _think_ they're typing into the DT
file is actually correct. All the time that we're have a tool which
allows typos through we're going to encounter bugs like this. Not a
problem when DT is shipped with the kernel, but when it isn't, what
More information about the Ksummit-2013-discuss