Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] dt: dependencies (for deterministic driver initialization order based on the DT)
From: Thierry Reding
Date: Tue Aug 26 2014 - 07:47:29 EST
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 01:23:54PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 26.08.2014 13:08, schrieb Thierry Reding:
> >On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:44:35PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
> >>Am 26.08.2014 12:25, schrieb Thierry Reding:
> >>>On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:42:04AM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
> >>>>You need either the type information in the DTB (that's why I've add those
> >>>>"dependencies" to identify phandles), or you need to know every binding (at
> >>>>"dependency-resolve-time" to identify phandles. The latter is impracticable
> >>>>to implement in a generic way (for use with every possible binding).
> >>>Like I already mentioned, this could be done in drivers who contain that
> >>>information already anyway. Or parts of it could be done in subsystem-
> >>>specific callbacks where a generic binding is available.
> >>That would end up with almost the same ugly driver-based workarounds as now.
> >>It's much better if a driver author only has to define it's prerequisits (in
> >>form of dependencies in the dts) and could be sure the driver will only be
> >>probed if those are met, than to do that stuff based on a subsystem or even
> >>driver level.
> >>If you add dependency-information to drivers, you have two problems:
> >We already have all that dependency information in drivers anyway. Each
> >driver requests the resources at .probe() time. What I proposed (it was
> >really Arnd who proposed it first) is to move that information out of
> >code and into some sort of table that could be used by the driver core
> >to figure out dependencies.
> >>- How do you get these information from the driver (remember, currently
> >>there is only one initial call, a initcall which might do almost anything)
> >While I don't think it's necessary, that's something that could be
> >changed. I mean, we have access to the full source code of this
> >operating system, so we can change every aspect of it. If we can't find
> >a way to make this work with the current initcall sequence it's always
> >an option to extend that sequence so that it meets our needs.
> >>- These information might become outdated and you would have to change all
> >>drivers. E.g. if the name of a dependency (driver) changes it wouldn't be
> >>done with changing the dts (maybe plural), but you would have to change the
> >>source of all dependant drivers too.
> >No. Drivers implement a DT binding. That binding defines what power
> >supplies, clocks, pinmux, ... the device needs. Those constitute the
> >dependencies. We most certainly don't want to depend on driver names
> >since there can be a multitude of different drivers that provide a given
> >What drivers should provide (and what they already provide today) is the
> >name of the property and the index of the cell that they expect to find
> >a phandle in as well as the type of the phandle. That's all that's
> >necessary, really. Everything else can be derived from that phandle and
> >the type.
> Drivers don't provide that information (dependencies) in any usable way. And
> as you said yourself, it's already contained in phandles. So what we are
> discussing here about? The proposal to use phandles for that is already on
> the table since several month. ;)
> Sorry, but I don't understand what you want to propose.
In many cases we simply don't know where phandles are stored since we
don't have the type information in DT. But drivers already know the type
of a specific phandle and where to get it from, so the proposal is to
make that knowledge more generally useful so that it can be used for
Description: PGP signature