[PATCH v3 6/8] dm: treewide: Complete migration to new driver model schema
Simon Glass
sjg at chromium.org
Fri Feb 10 17:05:27 CET 2023
Hi Tom, Michal,
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 18:40, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 06:32:58PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 17:16, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 03:25:18PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 14:46, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 02:43:49PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 14:06, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 10:12:27AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 07:56, Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2/6/23 15:44, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 01:22:48PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> Hi Simon,
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On 2/1/23 23:54, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> Update various build and test components to use the new schema.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > > > > > > > >>> ---
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> (no changes since v1)
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> drivers/core/ofnode.c | 10 +++++-----
> > > > > > > > > >>> drivers/video/video-uclass.c | 4 ++--
> > > > > > > > > >>> dts/Kconfig | 2 +-
> > > > > > > > > >>> include/dm/device.h | 2 +-
> > > > > > > > > >>> include/dm/ofnode.h | 10 +++++-----
> > > > > > > > > >>> scripts/Makefile.lib | 12 ++++++------
> > > > > > > > > >>> test/dm/test-fdt.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > > > >>> test/py/tests/test_ofplatdata.py | 8 ++++----
> > > > > > > > > >>> tools/binman/binman.rst | 3 +--
> > > > > > > > > >>> tools/dtoc/test_fdt.py | 8 ++++----
> > > > > > > > > >>> 10 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> diff --git a/drivers/core/ofnode.c b/drivers/core/ofnode.c
> > > > > > > > > >>> index 4d56b1a7675..5249a60639b 100644
> > > > > > > > > >>> --- a/drivers/core/ofnode.c
> > > > > > > > > >>> +++ b/drivers/core/ofnode.c
> > > > > > > > > >>> @@ -1265,22 +1265,22 @@ bool ofnode_pre_reloc(ofnode node)
> > > > > > > > > >>> {
> > > > > > > > > >>> #if defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || defined(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD)
> > > > > > > > > >>> /* for SPL and TPL the remaining nodes after the fdtgrep 1st pass
> > > > > > > > > >>> - * had property dm-pre-reloc or u-boot,dm-spl/tpl.
> > > > > > > > > >>> + * had property bootph-all or bootph-pre-sram/bootph-pre-ram.
> > > > > > > > > >>> * They are removed in final dtb (fdtgrep 2nd pass)
> > > > > > > > > >>> */
> > > > > > > > > >>> return true;
> > > > > > > > > >>> #else
> > > > > > > > > >>> - if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "u-boot,dm-pre-reloc"))
> > > > > > > > > >>> + if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "bootph-all"))
> > > > > > > > > >>> return true;
> > > > > > > > > >>> - if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "u-boot,dm-pre-proper"))
> > > > > > > > > >>> + if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "bootph-some-ram"))
> > > > > > > > > >>> return true;
> > > > > > > > > >>> /*
> > > > > > > > > >>> * In regular builds individual spl and tpl handling both
> > > > > > > > > >>> * count as handled pre-relocation for later second init.
> > > > > > > > > >>> */
> > > > > > > > > >>> - if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "u-boot,dm-spl") ||
> > > > > > > > > >>> - ofnode_read_bool(node, "u-boot,dm-tpl"))
> > > > > > > > > >>> + if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "bootph-pre-ram") ||
> > > > > > > > > >>> + ofnode_read_bool(node, "bootph-pre-sram"))
> > > > > > > > > >>> return true;
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Please correct me if I am wrong but this change will likely break all boards
> > > > > > > > > >> which didn't migrate to this at this stage. And because targeting early
> > > > > > > > > >> stages people will be without console.
> > > > > > > > > >> I think we should have transition period for 1-2 releases to give people
> > > > > > > > > >> enough time to migrate. It means print big warning that they have to migrate
> > > > > > > > > >> their DTS.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What's the migration case here we're missing? Is it platforms that
> > > > > > > > > > maintain a dts externally, via tooling / etc, that populate those nodes?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes and I expect there will be a lot of DTs around with some changes for
> > > > > > > > > specific products.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also for example QEMU is also generating DT based on it's configuration and
> > > > > > > > > provide it to U-Boot.
> > > > > > > > > https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/blob/master/hw/arm/xlnx-versal-virt.c#L91
> > > > > > > > > When this patch is applied CI loop should fail for Versal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am not sure how it helps us to drag this out. It is a breaking
> > > > > > > > change, but a drawn-out process is just going to create a lot of
> > > > > > > > confusion. People should be free to use the schema in Linux .dts files
> > > > > > > > from now on, but if it is not immediately supported in U-Boot then
> > > > > > > > they cannot. This is the most important point, after all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now that we've had some of the external migration issues laid out, what
> > > > > > > would it look like to have some sort of backwards compatible hook here
> > > > > > > to fixup an older tree we've been passed?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can't do it for SPL, since the processing happens at built time,
> > > > > > but for U-Boot proper we can do something like what Michal suggests,
> > > > > > although perhaps with a warning rather than an error. Likely the
> > > > > > warning would have to be displayed later (if/when U-Boot starts up)
> > > > > > since the console may be one of the problem nodes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right, if it's a build time thing, we should be able to ... something.
> > > > > Maybe a detect and rename for now, detect and fail in a bit. But
> > > >
> > > > But we only have this problem with out-of-tree .dts files, so I'm not
> > > > sure what you are suggesting here.
> > >
> > > I'm suggesting that you add the logic to detect these cases and deal
> > > with it. We aren't talking about stuff that should have been upstreamed
> > > but wasn't, we're talking about tooling that generates valid dts files
> > > and needs time to update.
> >
> > For runtime I think we can do something like what Michal suggested,
> > but more permissive. We can warn about it when U-Boot has started up.
> > There is no point in doing anything like that in the SPL phase as it
> > is too late.
> >
> > But we can also add a build-time check, as you say. I think you are
> > saying that it should work correctly in that case, rather than just
> > fail? That is easy enough for U-Boot proper I think. For SPL I am not
> > sure.
> >
> > I will take a look.
>
> For build time, if we're passed the old form, we should be able to
> detect it, and regex the input to be correct. And not for forever, but
> to give external (and yes, valid use case here!) tools time to catch up.
I took a crack at this and sent a new series.
Regards,
Simon
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list