[PATCH 06/16] board: ti: Convert cape detection to use UCLASS framework

[Kory Maincent]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 17:42:40 -0600
Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 05:30:15PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> > 
> > On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 at 15:44, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:  
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 02:38:23PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:  
> > > > Hi Kory,
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 at 10:34, Kory Maincent <kory.maincent at bootlin.com>
> > > > wrote:  
> > > > >
> > > > > Migrate TI board cape detection from legacy extension support to the
> > > > > new UCLASS-based extension board framework.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Kory Maincent <kory.maincent at bootlin.com>

...

> > > > > -int extension_board_scan(struct list_head *extension_list)
> > > > > +static int ti_extension_board_scan(struct alist *extension_list)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >         unsigned char addr;
> > > > >         int num_capes = 0;
> > > > > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ int extension_board_scan(struct list_head
> > > > > *extension_list) struct am335x_cape_eeprom_id eeprom_header;
> > > > >                 char process_cape_part_number[17] = {'0'};
> > > > >                 char process_cape_version[5] = {'0'};
> > > > > -               struct extension *cape;
> > > > > +               struct extension cape = {0}, *_cape;
> > > > >                 struct udevice *dev;
> > > > >                 u8 cursor = 0;
> > > > >                 int ret, i;
> > > > > @@ -78,22 +78,20 @@ int extension_board_scan(struct list_head
> > > > > *extension_list)  
> > > >
> > > > I suppose that a method called scan() could be added to the uclass and
> > > > implemented by this driver.

I don't understand what do you mean by method? Is it different to the
UBOOT driver scan ops I have designed? 

> > > > >                 printf("BeagleBone Cape: %s (0x%x)\n",
> > > > > eeprom_header.board_name, addr);
> > > > >
> > > > > -               cape = calloc(1, sizeof(struct extension));
> > > > > -               if (!cape) {
> > > > > -                       printf("Error in memory allocation\n");
> > > > > -                       return num_capes;
> > > > > -               }
> > > > > -
> > > > > -               snprintf(cape->overlay, sizeof(cape->overlay),
> > > > > "%s-%s.dtbo",
> > > > > +               snprintf(cape.overlay, sizeof(cape.overlay),
> > > > > "%s-%s.dtbo", process_cape_part_number, process_cape_version);
> > > > > -               strlcpy(cape->name, eeprom_header.board_name,
> > > > > +               strlcpy(cape.name, eeprom_header.board_name,
> > > > >                         sizeof(eeprom_header.board_name));
> > > > > -               strlcpy(cape->version, process_cape_version,
> > > > > +               strlcpy(cape.version, process_cape_version,
> > > > >                         sizeof(process_cape_version));
> > > > > -               strlcpy(cape->owner, eeprom_header.manufacturer,
> > > > > +               strlcpy(cape.owner, eeprom_header.manufacturer,
> > > > >                         sizeof(eeprom_header.manufacturer) + 1);
> > > > > -               list_add_tail(&cape->list, extension_list);
> > > > > +               _cape = alist_add(extension_list, cape);
> > > > > +               if (!_cape)
> > > > > +                       return -ENOMEM;
> > > > >                 num_capes++;
> > > > >         }
> > > > >         return num_capes;
> > > > >  }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +U_BOOT_EXTENSION(cape, ti_extension_board_scan);  
> > > >
> > > > Can the extension information go in the devicetree, so boards can
> > > > select their scheme that way?  
> > >
> > > Since we're scanning to see what extension boards are present and so
> > > what device tree overlays to apply, I don't think that can work?  
> > 
> > My understanding is that the scanning process is board-specific. For
> > example we would not want the Beagle mechanism to be compiled into
> > rpi. The idea of scanning things in a board-specific way seems like a
> > driver to me. Note there is also the SYSINFO uclass which can do
> > similar things.
> >
> > The overlays being applied here are additions to what should already
> > be a fairly complete devicetree.
> > 
> > If this isn't possible, then where is the information known?

Oh, so you would prefer to have something like the sysinfo drivers.
 
> You're commenting on a patch to the TI specific code, that's only used
> by TI SoC using platforms that opt-in to the externally defined EEPROM
> format for these "capes". Perhaps your feedback would make more sense in
> some other part of the patch series? But even then, I'm not sure it
> makes sense?

I am ok to move the cape scan detection code to a standalone driver with a
devicetree compatible match. Just wondering what are the advantages to use
standalone drivers instead of having the code in the specific board code as
done in this series.

Regards,
-- 
Köry Maincent, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com