|
@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
|
|
|
|
+Pre-relocation device tree manipulation
|
|
|
|
+=======================================
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+Contents:
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+1. Purpose
|
|
|
|
+2. Implementation
|
|
|
|
+3. Example
|
|
|
|
+4. Work to be done
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+1. Purpose
|
|
|
|
+----------
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+In certain markets, it is beneficial for manufacturers of embedded devices to
|
|
|
|
+offer certain ranges of products, where the functionality of the devices within
|
|
|
|
+one series either don't differ greatly from another, or can be thought of as
|
|
|
|
+"extensions" of each other, where one device only differs from another in the
|
|
|
|
+addition of a small number of features (e.g. an additional output connector).
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+To realize this in hardware, one method is to have a motherboard, and several
|
|
|
|
+possible daughter boards that can be attached to this mother board. Different
|
|
|
|
+daughter boards then either offer the slightly different functionality, or the
|
|
|
|
+addition of the daughter board to the device realizes the "extension" of
|
|
|
|
+functionality to the device described previously.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+For the software, we obviously want to reuse components for all these
|
|
|
|
+variations of the device. This means that the software somehow needs to cope
|
|
|
|
+with the situation that certain ICs may or may not be present on any given
|
|
|
|
+system, depending on which daughter boards are connected to the motherboard.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+In the Linux kernel, one possible solution to this problem is to employ the
|
|
|
|
+device tree overlay mechanism: There exists one "base" device tree, which
|
|
|
|
+features only the components guaranteed to exist in all varieties of the
|
|
|
|
+device. At the start of the kernel, the presence and type of the daughter
|
|
|
|
+boards is then detected, and the corresponding device tree overlays are applied
|
|
|
|
+to support the components on the daughter boards.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+Note that the components present on every variety of the board must, of course,
|
|
|
|
+provide a way to find out if and which daughter boards are installed for this
|
|
|
|
+mechanism to work.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+In the U-Boot boot loader, support for device tree overlays has recently been
|
|
|
|
+integrated, and is used on some boards to alter the device tree that is later
|
|
|
|
+passed to Linux. But since U-Boot's driver model, which is device tree-based as
|
|
|
|
+well, is being used in more and more drivers, the same problem of altering the
|
|
|
|
+device tree starts cropping up in U-Boot itself as well.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+An additional problem with the device tree in U-Boot is that it is read-only,
|
|
|
|
+and the current mechanisms don't allow easy manipulation of the device tree
|
|
|
|
+after the driver model has been initialized. While migrating to a live device
|
|
|
|
+tree (at least after the relocation) would greatly simplify the solution of
|
|
|
|
+this problem, it is a non-negligible task to implement it, an a interim
|
|
|
|
+solution is needed to address the problem at least in the medium-term.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+Hence, we propose a solution to this problem by offering a board-specific
|
|
|
|
+call-back function, which is passed a writeable pointer to the device tree.
|
|
|
|
+This function is called before the device tree is relocated, and specifically
|
|
|
|
+before the main U-Boot's driver model is instantiated, hence the main U-Boot
|
|
|
|
+"sees" all modifications to the device tree made in this function. Furthermore,
|
|
|
|
+we have the pre-relocation driver model at our disposal at this stage, which
|
|
|
|
+means that we can query the hardware for the existence and variety of the
|
|
|
|
+components easily.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+2. Implementation
|
|
|
|
+-----------------
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+To take advantage of the pre-relocation device tree manipulation mechanism,
|
|
|
|
+boards have to implement the function board_fix_fdt, which has the following
|
|
|
|
+signature:
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+int board_fix_fdt (void *rw_fdt_blob)
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+The passed-in void pointer is a writeable pointer to the device tree, which can
|
|
|
|
+be used to manipulate the device tree using e.g. functions from
|
|
|
|
+include/fdt_support.h. The return value should either be 0 in case of
|
|
|
|
+successful execution of the device tree manipulation or something else for a
|
|
|
|
+failure. Note that returning a non-null value from the function will
|
|
|
|
+unrecoverably halt the boot process, as with any function from init_sequence_f
|
|
|
|
+(in common/board_f.c).
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+Furthermore, the Kconfig option OF_BOARD_FIXUP has to be set for the function
|
|
|
|
+to be called:
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+Device Tree Control
|
|
|
|
+-> [*] Board-specific manipulation of Device Tree
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
++----------------------------------------------------------+
|
|
|
|
+| WARNING: The actual manipulation of the device tree has |
|
|
|
|
+| to be the _last_ set of operations in board_fix_fdt! |
|
|
|
|
+| Since the pre-relocation driver model does not adapt to |
|
|
|
|
+| changes made to the device tree either, its references |
|
|
|
|
+| into the device tree will be invalid after manipulating |
|
|
|
|
+| it, and unpredictable behavior might occur when |
|
|
|
|
+| functions that rely on them are executed! |
|
|
|
|
++----------------------------------------------------------+
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+Hence, the recommended layout of the board_fixup_fdt call-back function is the
|
|
|
|
+following:
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+int board_fix_fdt(void *rw_fdt_blob)
|
|
|
|
+{
|
|
|
|
+ /* Collect information about device's hardware and store them in e.g.
|
|
|
|
+ local variables */
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ /* Do device tree manipulation using the values previously collected */
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ /* Return 0 on successful manipulation and non-zero otherwise */
|
|
|
|
+}
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+If this convention is kept, both an "additive" approach, meaning that nodes for
|
|
|
|
+detected components are added to the device tree, as well as a "subtractive"
|
|
|
|
+approach, meaning that nodes for absent components are removed from the tree,
|
|
|
|
+as well as a combination of both approaches should work.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+3. Example
|
|
|
|
+----------
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+The controlcenterdc board (board/gdsys/a38x/controlcenterdc.c) features a
|
|
|
|
+board_fix_fdt function, in which six GPIO expanders (which might be present or
|
|
|
|
+not, since they are on daughter boards) on a I2C bus are queried for, and
|
|
|
|
+subsequently deactivated in the device tree if they are not present.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+Note that the dm_i2c_simple_probe function does not use the device tree, hence
|
|
|
|
+it is safe to call it after the tree has already been manipulated.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+4. Work to be done
|
|
|
|
+------------------
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+* The application of device tree overlay should be possible in board_fixup_fdt,
|
|
|
|
+ but has not been tested at this stage.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+2017-01-06, Mario Six <mario.six@gdsys.cc>
|