[PATCH 06/16] board: ti: Convert cape detection to use UCLASS framework
Tom Rini
trini at konsulko.com
Tue Oct 7 18:42:07 CEST 2025
On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 06:29:38PM +0200, Kory Maincent wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 08:11:48 -0600
> Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 11:32:13AM +0200, Kory Maincent wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > I'm not sure there is an advantage. Especially since in theory we could
> > have more than one built in, and if ti_extension_board_scan(...) doesn't
> > find anything (because the EEPROM is missing/wrong) we could still then
> > call rpi_extension_board_scan(...) and look for that formatted type of
> > EEPROM and then chipanddip_extension_board_scan(...) and look for that
> > and so forth. These extensions are nominally discoverable and so don't
> > need device tree compatibles, was some of the point of all this I would
> > have sworn...
>
> I think, he means a driver for each type of custom extension board scan
> functions (4 until now). The U-boot devicetree would be like this:
> extension_scan {
> compatible = "bone-cape-scan";
> };
>
> We could avoid the build of several extension drivers using Kconfig choice
> symbol to select only one builtin.
>
> On my side I don't really have opinions, it is a matter of code design. For now
> I don't see real argument to tilt the balance except to do something like
> sysinfo. We need more arguments from Simon.
Yes, and needing to go back to modifying the device trees seems a step
backwards here, and something that will be hard to argue for upstream.
--
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20251007/081e2269/attachment.sig>
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list