Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] clk: dt: binding for basic multiplexer clock

[Stephen Warren]

On 09/06/2013 12:53 AM, Tero Kristo wrote:
> On 09/05/2013 11:30 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:

...
>> 1)
>>
>> At least for large SoCs (rather than e.g. a simple clock generator
>> chip/crystal with 1 or 2 outputs), clock drivers need a *lot* of data.
>> We can either:
>>
>> a) Put that data into the clock driver, so it's "just there" for the
>> clock driver to use.
>>
>> b) Represent that data in DT, and write code in the clock driver to
>> parse DT when the driver probe()s.
>>
>> Option (a) is very simple.
> 
> How can you claim option (a) to be very simple compared to (b)? I think
> both are as easy / or hard to implement.

Well, the work required for (b) is a pure super-set of the work require
for (a), so clearly (a) is less work (perhaps the issue you're debating
is harder/easier rather than more/less work?)

>> Option (b) entails writing (and executing) a whole bunch of DT parsing
>> code.It's a lot of effort to define the DT binding for the data,
>> convert the data into DT format, and write the parsing code. It wastes
>> execution time at boot. In the end, the result of the parsing is exactly
>> the same data structures that could have been embedded into DT in the
>> first place. This seems like a futile effort.
> 
> Not really, consider a new SoC where you don't have any kind of data at
> all. You need to write the data tables anyway, whether they are under DT
> or some kernel data struct.

Yes.

But beyond writing the data tables, you also don't/do have to write all
the DT parsing code based on choosing (a) or (b), etc.

> The execution time remain in place for
> parsing DT data though, but I wouldn't think this to be a problem. Also,
> you should consider multiarch ARM kernel, where same kernel binary
> should support multiple SoCs, this would entail having clock data for
> all built in to the kernel, which can be a problem also.

There's no reason that the clock data has to be built into the kernel at
all; we should support even SoC clock drivers as modules in an initrd.
Alternatively, drop the unused data from the kernel after boot via
__init or similar. Alternatively, "pre-link" the clock driver module
into the kernel in a way that allows it to be unloaded after boot even
though it was built-in.

...
> You can just as easily claim that anything internal to SoC should be
> left out from DT, as this is cast in stone (or rather, silicon) also. We
> should only use it to describe board layout. Everything else, the kernel
> can 'know' by compile time.

I did, immediately below:-) And then I went on to explain why that's
necessary in many cases.

...
> I can turn this around, as you went to this road. Why have DT at all?

I believe (at least for ARM) the idea was to avoid churn to the kernel
for supporting the numerous different *boards*.

The kernel needs and contains drivers for HW blocks, and so since
they're there, they may as well encode everything about the HW block.

However, in most cases, the kernel shouldn't contain drivers for boards;
boards are built from various common components which have drivers. DT
is used to describe how those components are inter-connected. Hence, we
can hopefully remove all board-related churn from the kernel (once the
DT files are moved out of the kernel).

> Personally I hate the whole idea of a devicetree, however am forced to
> use it as somebody decided it is a good idea to have one. It doesn't
> really solve any problems, it just creates new ones in a way of
> political BS where everybody claims they know how DT should be used, and
> this just prevents people from actually using it at all. Also, it
> creates just one new unnecessary dependency for boot, previously we had
> bootloader and kernel images which had to be in sync, now we have
> bootloader + DT + kernel. What next? Maybe we should move the clock data
> into a firmware file of its own?

Well, I can sympathize, but I think the time is past for debating that.

> Why do you care so much what actually goes into the devicetree?

To get DT right.

Even if we went back to board files and mach-xxx specific code rather
than cleanly separated drivers, it would still be beneficial to have
much more oversight of board/mach-xxx code than there was previously.
Board files made it very easy to do SoC-specific hacks. To avoid that,
in either DT or board files, we're trying to impose standards so that we
pick correct, generic, appropriate solutions, rather than letting
everyone run of with isolated ad-hoc solutions.

> Shouldn't people be let use it how they see fit? For the clock bindings
> business this is the same, even if the bindings are there, you are free
> to use them if you like, and if you don't like them, you can do things
> differently.

We'd be better of creating as much standardization as possible, so that
all SoCs/boards/.. work as similarly as possible, and we achieve maximal
code reuse, design-reuse, and allow people to understand everything
rather than just one particular SoC's/board's solution.

If we don't get some re-use and standardization out of DT, we really may
as well just use board files.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/