Re: Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

[Pantelis Antoniou]

Hi Frank,

> On Jul 1, 2016, at 21:21 , Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On 07/01/16 09:56, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi Frank,
>> 
>>> On Jul 1, 2016, at 19:31 , Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 07/01/16 03:59, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>>> Hi Frank,
>>>> 
>>>> Comments inline.
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 1, 2016, at 03:02 , Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've been trying to wrap my head around what Pantelis and Rob have written
>>>>> on the subject of a device tree representation of a connector for a
>>>>> daughter board to connect to (eg a cape or a shield) and the representation
>>>>> of the daughter board.  (Or any other physically pluggable object.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> After trying to make sense of what had been written (or presented via slides
>>>>> at a conference - thanks Pantelis!), I decided to go back to first principals
>>>>> of what we are trying to accomplish.  I came up with some really simple bogus
>>>>> examples to try to explain what my thought process is.
>>>>> 
>>>>> To start with, assume that the device that will eventually be on a daughter
>>>>> board is first soldered onto the main board.  Then the device tree will
>>>>> look like:
>>>>> 
>>>>> $ cat board.dts
>>>>> /dts-v1/;
>>>>> 
>>>>> / {
>>>>>      #address-cells = < 1 >;
>>>>>      #size-cells = < 1 >;
>>>>> 
>>>>>      tree_1: soc@0 {
>>>>>              reg = <0x0 0x0>;
>>>>> 
>>>>>              spi_1: spi1 {
>>>>>              };
>>>>>      };
>>>>> 
>>>>> };
>>>>> 
>>>>> &spi_1 {
>>>>>      ethernet-switch@0 {
>>>>>              compatible = "micrel,ks8995m";
>>>>>      };
>>>>> };
>>>>> 
>>>>> #include "spi_codec.dtsi"
>>>>> 
>>>>> $ cat spi_codec.dtsi
>>>>> &spi_1 {
>>>>> 	codec@1 {
>>>>> 		compatible = "ti,tlv320aic26";
>>>>> 	};
>>>>> };
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> #----- codec chip on cape
>>>>> 
>>>>> Then suppose I move the codec chip to a cape.  Then I will have the same
>>>>> exact .dts and .dtsi and everything still works.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> @----- codec chip on cape, overlay
>>>>> 
>>>>> If I want to use overlays, I only have to add the version and "/plugin/",
>>>>> then use the '-@' flag for dtc (both for the previous board.dts and
>>>>> this spi_codec_overlay.dts):
>>>>> 
>>>>> $ cat spi_codec_overlay.dts
>>>>> /dts-v1/;
>>>>> 
>>>>> /plugin/;
>>>>> 
>>>>> &spi_1 {
>>>>> 	codec@1 {
>>>>> 		compatible = "ti,tlv320aic26";
>>>>> 	};
>>>>> };
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The correct form now for the /plugin/ declaration should be like
>>>> 
>>>> /dts-v1/ /plugin/;
>>>> 
>>>> The old method still works for backward compatibility.
>>>> 
>>>> In fact with the new patches you donât even /plugin/ since when
>>>> compiling an overlay we can turn on the plugin flag by looking
>>>> at the output type (dtbo).
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> #----- codec chip on cape, overlay, connector
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now we move into the realm of connectors.  My mental model of what the
>>>>> hardware and driver look like has not changed.  The only thing that has
>>>>> changed is that I want to be able to specify that the connector that
>>>>> the cape is plugged into has some pins that are the spi bus /soc/spi1.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thatâs not nearly enough. You might have extra 
>>>> gpio/interrupt/dma/gpmc(memory-controller) pins.
>>> 
>>> Yes.
>>> 
>>> I was keeping the example _very_ simple.  I was trying to illustrate
>>> the _concept_, not provide a full implementation.
>>> 
>>> In a real use, the connector node would provide a node for each of the
>>> things routed to the connector.
>>> 
>> 
>> We need the example of how to handle pinmux cause itâs the trickiest
>> thing of all.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> We can disregard dma and gpmc like interfaces for now but gpio and
>>>> interrupt pins are required.
>>>> 
>>>> For instance the spi device might have an extra gpio that itâs using
>>>> to signal some kind of condition (for example low-battery) which an
>>>> application (not just the kernel) can use to make a platform specific
>>>> decision.
>>>> 
>>>>> The following _almost_ but not quite gets me what I want.  Note that
>>>>> the only thing the connector node does is provide some kind of
>>>>> pointer or reference to what node(s) are physically routed through
>>>>> the connector.  (This node will turn out to not actually work in
>>>>> this example.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> $ cat board_with_connector.dts
>>>>> /dts-v1/;
>>>>> 
>>>>> / {
>>>>> 	#address-cells = < 1 >;
>>>>> 	#size-cells = < 1 >;
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	tree_1: soc@0 {
>>>>> 		reg = <0x0 0x0>;
>>>>> 
>>>>> 		spi_1: spi1 {
>>>>> 		};
>>>>> 	};
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	connector_1: connector_1 {
>>>>> 		spi1 {
>>>>> 			target_phandle = <&spi_1>;
>>>>> 			target_path = "/soc/spi1";
>>>>> 		};
>>>>> 	};
>>>>> 
>>>>> };
>>>>> 
>>>>> &spi_1 {
>>>>> 	ethernet-switch@0 {
>>>>> 		compatible = "micrel,ks8995m";
>>>>> 	};
>>>>> };
>>>>> 
>>>>> $ cat spi_codec_overlay_with_connector.dts
>>>>> /dts-v1/;
>>>>> 
>>>>> /plugin/;
>>>>> 
>>>>> &connector_1 {
>>>>> 	spi1 {
>>>>> 		codec@1 {
>>>>> 			compatible = "ti,tlv320aic26";
>>>>> 		};
>>>>> 	};
>>>>> };
>>>> 
>>>> This is a subset of whatâs supported by the patch Iâve sent out.
>>> 
>>> Yes.  Same comment as above.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Your example works as long as you assume that thereâs no pinmuxing
>>>> related to the configuration of the spi controller when routed out
>>>> to the connector pins.
>>> 
>>> No.  Pinmuxing is part of the host board dts.
>>> 
>> 
>> It is part of the host board DTS yes, but the connector must have
>> a way to set the pinmux configuration according what the detected
>> expansion board expects.
>> 
>>> The physical connector does not change the way that pinmuxing
>>> works.  It is just the same as if there were wires physically
>>> connected (soldered) between the daughter board and the main
>>> board.
>>> 
>> 
>> The physical properties of the pin of the connector do not change.
>> 
>> However the routing of functions in the SoC do change.
>> 
>> By default most of the pins on the connector are HiZ or set to input when
>> no expansion board is connected. The only fixed function pins that are
>> known and configured by the host board dts are those that are used by
>> the host boardâs identification scheme (i.e. I2C EEPROM, set of GPIO inputs
>> etc). 
>> 
>> When an expansion board is connected upon boot and probing of the the expansion
>> board manager device it will use a method that is using the configured detection
>> pins to identify it.
>> 
>> After getting the ID it is going to find a corresponding overlay to apply.
>> 
>> This overlay will have to configure each pin accordingly.
>> 
>> It is perfectly for a pin on a connector to be a GPIO output for expansion
>> board A, I2C bus SDA for board B, etc...
>> 
>> So there has to be a way to get the pinmux configuration according to the
>> required connection function on each pin in use.
> 
> Again, this is exactly the same concept as if the daughter board was soldered
> directly to the host board with no connector involved.  The pinmux
> configuration has nothing to do with the physical connector, it is already
> described by the pinmux information in the host board .dtb.  The connector
> node in the host .dtb does not need to duplicate any of that information.
> 
> There already is a pinmux mechanism in place to choose which of the
> possible alternative uses of a set of pins is in use at any point
> in time.  The choice of active functionality can be changed at
> any time.
> 
> The pinmux configuration is already in place in the host board .dtb.
> The host board .dtb connector node only provides a mapping to what
> other nodes have hardware blocks that have signals that are routed
> to the physical connector.  There is no need for the connector node
> to be concerned with any of the details of those other nodes -- the
> other nodes already specify the details.
> 

The mechanism to choose which of the possible alternative uses is
geared to select between a different set of configuration settings
for the same device. I.e. âdefaultâ -> working configuration, âpowersaveâ ->
put the pins in power save mode, etc.

I get what youâre saying but the details about pinmuxing are the killer.

Can you please spend some time and come up with an example which we can
use as a basis for discussion?

>>>> In reality there are may be many possible option of the same
>>>> hardware block (spi/i2c) to be routed to different pins on the
>>>> connector.
>>>> 
>>>> You might get by if you have a number of selectable pre-canned
>>>> spi configuration that are selected.
>>> 
>>> Again, just the same as if the connector did not exist and
>>> everything is hardwired.
>>> 
>>> The connector node for the host board would contain a node for
>>> each of the alternative uses of the pins.
>>> 
>> 
>> Right.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> For instance if there are two spi controllers each of which have
>>>> two different pinout options on the connector you would address
>>>> each as a different spi controller on the connector, but then
>>>> youâd end up with
>>>> 
>>>> spi_connector_0 -> spi_0_mux_0
>>>> spi_connector_1 -> spi_0_mux_1
>>>> spi_connector_2 -> spi_1_mux_0
>>>> spi_connector_3 -> spi_1_mux_1
>>> 
>>> Yes.  But again, exactly the same as if the daughter board was
>>> hard wired with no intervening physical connector.
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> It gets hairy though pretty fast with modern SoCs with extensive 
>>>> muxing options.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The result is that the overlay fixup for spi1 on the cape will
>>>>> relocate the spi1 node to /connector_1 in the host tree, so
>>>>> this does not solve the connector linkage yet:
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- chunk from the decompiled board_with_connector.dtb:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	__symbols__ {
>>>>> 		connector_1 = "/connector_1";
>>>>> 	};
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- chunk from the decompiled spi_codec_overlay_with_connector.dtb:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	fragment@0 {
>>>>> 		target = <0xffffffff>;
>>>>> 		__overlay__ {
>>>>> 			spi1 {
>>>>> 				codec@1 {
>>>>> 					compatible = "ti,tlv320aic26";
>>>>> 				};
>>>>> 			};
>>>>> 		};
>>>>> 	};
>>>>> 	__fixups__ {
>>>>> 		connector_1 = "/fragment@0:target:0";
>>>>> 	};
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> #----- magic new dtc syntax
>>>>> 
>>>>> What I really want is some way to tell dtc that I want to do one
>>>>> level of dereferencing when resolving the path of device nodes
>>>>> contained by the connector node in the overlay dts.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The exact syntax does not matter here, I am just trying to get the
>>>>> concept.  I will add the not yet implemented dtc feature of
>>>>> "/connector/" to the connector node in both the tree dts and the
>>>>> overlay dts, and show how the output of dtc would change.  The
>>>>> "/connector/" directive tells dtc that for a base dts (hand
>>>>> waving how it knows base vs overlay dts file) to look into
>>>>> each node at that level and determine what other node it
>>>>> maps to (again, hand waving, in this example just to
>>>>> show the linkage, I have hard coded both the path and the
>>>>> phandle of the target node that the connector child node
>>>>> maps to).  The "/connector/" directive tells dtc that for
>>>>> an overlay dts (again hand waving) to provide a fixup for
>>>>> each child node.
>>>>> 
>>>>> $ cat board_with_connector_v2.dts
>>>>> /dts-v1/;
>>>>> 
>>>>> / {
>>>>> 	#address-cells = < 1 >;
>>>>> 	#size-cells = < 1 >;
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	tree_1: soc@0 {
>>>>> 		reg = <0x0 0x0>;
>>>>> 
>>>>> 		spi_1: spi1 {
>>>>> 		};
>>>>> 	};
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	connector_1: connector_1 {
>>>>> 		/connector/;
>>>>> 		spi1 {
>>>>> 			target_phandle = <&spi_1>;
>>>>> 			target_path = "/soc/spi1";
>>>>> 		};
>>>>> 	};
>>>>> 
>>>>> };
>>>>> 
>>>>> &spi_1 {
>>>>> 	ethernet-switch@0 {
>>>>> 		compatible = "micrel,ks8995m";
>>>>> 	};
>>>>> };
>>>>> 
>>>>> $ cat spi_codec_overlay_with_connector_v2.dts
>>>>> 
>>>>> /dts-v1/;
>>>>> 
>>>>> /plugin/;
>>>>> 
>>>>> &connector_1 {
>>>>> 	/connector/;
>>>>> 	spi1 {
>>>>> 		codec@1 {
>>>>> 			compatible = "ti,tlv320aic26";
>>>>> 		};
>>>>> 	};
>>>>> };
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- chunk from the decompiled board_with_connector_v2.dtb:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	__symbols__ {
>>>>>              connector_1 {
>>>>>                      spi1 = "/soc@0/spi1";
>>>>>              };
>>>>>      };
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- chunk from the decompiled spi_codec_overlay_with_connector_v2.dtb:
>>>>> 
>>>>> / {
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	fragment@0 {
>>>>> 		target = <0xffffffff>;
>>>>> 		__overlay__ {
>>>>> 			spi1 {
>>>>> 				codec@1 {
>>>>> 					compatible = "ti,tlv320aic26";
>>>>> 				};
>>>>> 			};
>>>>> 		};
>>>>> 	};
>>>>> 	__fixups__ {
>>>>>              connector_1 {
>>>>> 		        spi1 = "/fragment@0/__overlay__:spi1:0";
>>>>>              };
>>>>> 	};
>>>>> 
>>>>> Of course the overlay loader will also have to be modified to understand
>>>>> the new information.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Exact format of the __symbols__ and __fixups__ are implementation
>>>>> details, I am just trying to present the model.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ignoring device tree source syntax and dtc implementation issues, does
>>>>> this conceptual model look more straight forward and a better direction
>>>>> for how to represent connectors?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> We could use dtc sugar to get to something more elegant, I need some time
>>>> to think about this a bit longer.
>>>> 
>>>>> -Frank
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> 
>>>> â Pantelis
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> â Pantelis

Regards

â Pantelis