On 06/19/18 08:52, Rob Herring wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:45 AM, Linus Walleij linus.walleij@linaro.org wrote:
This is a proposal for how to handle the non-discoverable 96boards plug-in expansion boards called "mezzanines" in the Linux kernel. It is a working RFC series meant for discussion at the moment.
The RFC was done on the brand new Ultra96 board from Xilinx with a Secure96 mezzanine expansion board. The main part is in patch 4, the rest is enabling and examples.
The code can be obtained from here: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-integrator.git/...
You can for example probably augment the DTS file for any upstream-supported 96board and get the Secure96 going with it with minor efforts.
TODO:
Proper device tree bindings for the connector, for now look at the example.
Discuss whether to actually do this or just take it all and flush it down the drain because the community doesn't like it. I'm not one of those especially infatuated with my own code, I always stay by the old programming project management mantra to calculate to make one version and throw it away as stepping stone to a good final design.
Placement: putting this in drivers/bus is just an example. drivers/platform/96boards-mezzanines is fine too, maybe better?
I am especially curious about input from Andy and Mika from the Intel/ACPI camp on what they have seen for non-discoverable plug-in boards. Does this problem even exist in the Intel world, or not...
Background:
These boards connect on a custom connector on this family of boards. The relationship is many-to-many with the connector as nexus. The electronic standard for the connector is specified: https://github.com/96boards/documentation/blob/master/Specifications/96Board... Example mezzanines: https://www.96boards.org/documentation/mezzanine/
These boards have siblings on other platforms, the problem scope is similar with BeagleBone "capes": https://beagleboard.org/capes Raspberry Pi expansion boards: https://www.abelectronics.co.uk/products/18/raspberry-pi-expansion-boards Intel Edison, Galileo, Joule also have expansion boards.
Idea: add a driver for the connector itself and tie it in to the device tree with a compatible string. Since the boards are non-discoverable two mechanisms are provided to discover them:
Add a very simple device tree node with just a compatible string for the board in the node. This will be simple to add from e.g. a boot loader or as an overlay from userspace.
board { compatible = "96boards,secure96"; };
Echo 1 > boardname into a sysfs file to populate the board and echo 0 > boardname to depopulate it. This makes it easy to even switch out expansion boards at runtime, if allowed by the electronics.
cd /sys/devices/platform/connector echo 1 > secure96
lscon connector: called mezzanine_store on secure96 lscon connector: populate secure96 at24 1-0050: 2048 byte 24c128 EEPROM, writable, 128 bytes/write atmel-ecc 1-0060: configuration zone is unlocked tpm_tis_spi spi0.0: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0x1B, rev-id 16) (...)
What this patch set does not do:
- It does not use device tree or ACPI DSDT or any other hardware decription language to model the contents of the board per se. Instead the boards buses are populated directly with platform devices.
Predictable complaints about this design:
Q: This is not device tree overlays. Why is it not device tree overlays?
A1: Right tool for the job, overlays are complex and the plan to get it in place seems to be spanning years, this is a few devices on simple busses and it works today. Using this approach I can already work on shaping up drivers for the mezzanine board devices as proved by: https://marc.info/?l=linux-crypto-vger&m=152820660120590&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=linux-crypto-vger&m=152820662820595&w=2 (...)
I can work on drivers for the chips on the Secure96 mezzanine board. It's just an example of what the mezzanine community can do. Now they are hacking around in userspace instead of doing/reusing kernel drivers for their stuff: https://github.com/jbech-linaro/secure96 This way we can bring developers for these components into the kernel community instead of telling them to wait for some big infrastructure that comes later before they can contribute their stuff.A2: Overlays does not solve the problem if the system runs ACPI, and what about if the same connector[s] appear on a server board, servers use ACPI. Also notice that Intel have development boards with non-discoverable expansion boards as well. They just will not use device tree.
A3: Overlays is Big Upfront Design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Design_Up_Front This way of designing things is associated with the (pejorative term) "waterfall model" which is out of fashion as a way of doing development. I think I am not the only one slightly annoyed by the fact that device tree overlays is now starting to look like a very big very upfront design. It's just not possible to get something up and running in small iterative steps with device tree overlays. Instead huge efforts are required and it involves major possible showstoppers and uncertain outcome as indicated by Frank's TODO: https://elinux.org/Frank%27s_Evolving_Overlay_Thoughts
I don't agree. This can be broken down into various smaller mostly independent problems. Overlay handling is mostly an orthogonal problem. The exception is that we need to ensure bindings allow a decoupling of upstream of the connector and downstream of the connector so the downstream part can be a reusable overlay. Defining anything while ignoring this known criteria would be a mistake.
The list is roughly like this:
- Connector node binding and probing infrastructure
- GPIO (already done w/ gpio-map binding)
- I2C
- SPI
- Pinmux
- clocks
- OF graph (displays, cameras, etc.)
- USB (re-use the USB connector binding for non-standard connectors)
- Userspace interface
We don't have to support every interface from the start. The bindings and corresponding kernel support can be designed 1-by-1 for the most part. Start with something simple like a GPIO LED on a mezzanine. Once the base is functionality is there, the other parts can be worked on incrementally. We can punt any overlay handling to the bootloader initially. That punts all the issues around overlays like designing a userspace interface, where overlays are located (filesystem, passed from bootloader, built into the kernel), when they are loaded, and how to specify which overlays to load. Most of Frank's list is related to these issues.
Rob
Agreeing with Rob (despite my other reply asking why the current devicetree mechanisms can't be used) that we do have a desire to have the ability to create bindings for connectors - this has been discussed before.
-Frank