Hi,

On 10/02/2014 04:16 PM, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Hans de Goede [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On 10/02/2014 03:40 PM, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Hans de Goede [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On 10/02/2014 03:27 PM, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Hans de Goede [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On 10/02/2014 02:56 PM, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Hans de Goede [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On 10/02/2014 02:22 PM, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Hans de Goede [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On 10/01/2014 08:12 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

On 10/01/2014 11:54 AM, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Hans de Goede [off-list ref] wrote:

...

quoted

quoted

We've been over all this again and again and again.

AAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

All solutions provided sofar are both tons more complicated, then the
simple solution of simply having the simplefb dt node declare which
clocks it needs. And to make things worse all of them sofar have
unresolved issues (due to their complexity mostly).

With the clocks in the simplefb node, then all a real driver has to do,
is claim those same clocks before unregistering the simplefb driver,
and everything will just work.

Yet we've been discussing this for months, all because of some
vague worries from Thierry, and *only* from Thierry that this will
make simplefb less generic / not abstract enough, while a simple
generic clocks property is about as generic as things come.

Note: I haven't been following this thread, and really don't have the time to get involved, but I did want to point out one thing:

As I think I mentioned very early on in this thread, one of the big concerns when simplefb was merged was that it would slowly grow and become a monster. As such, a condition of merging it was that it would not grow features like resource management at all. That means no clock/regulator/... support. It's intended as a simple stop-gap between early platform bringup and whenever a real driver exists for the HW. If you need resource management, write a HW-specific driver. The list archives presumably have a record of the discussion, but I don't know the links off the top of my head. If nobody
other than Thierry is objecting, presumably the people who originally objected simply haven't noticed this patch/thread. I suppose it's possible they changed their mind.

BTW, there's no reason that the simplefb code couldn't be refactored out into a support library that's used by both the simplefb we currently have and any new HW-specific driver. It's just that the simplefb binding and driver shouldn't grow.

The whole reason why we want to use simplefb is not just to get things
running until HW specific driver is in place, but also to have early console
output (to help debugging boot problems on devices without a serial console),
in a world where most video drivers are build as loadable modules, so we
won't have video output until quite late into the boot process.

You need both.

1) temporary early boot console -- this is nothing but an address in
RAM and the x/y layout. The character set from framebuffer is built
into the kernel.  The parallel to this is early-printk and how it uses
the UARTs without interrupts. This console vaporizes late in the boot
process -- the same thing happens with the early printk UART driver.
EARLYPRINTK on the command line enables this.

2) a device specific driver -- this sits on initrd and it loaded as
soon as possible. The same thing happens with the real UART driver for
the console. CONSOLE= on the command line causes the transition. There
is an API in the kernel to do this transition, I believe it is called
set_console() but it's been a while.

Eventually we need both, yes. But 1) should stay working until 2) loads,
not until some phase of the bootup is completed, but simply until 2) loads.

No, that is where you get into trouble. The device specific driver has
to go onto initrd where it can be loaded as early in the boot process
as possible.

This is an argument in the "you cannot do that" / "your use case is not valid"
category, IOW this is not a technical argument. You say I cannot do that I
say I can, deadlock.

It is certainly possible to extend an earlyframebuffer to be able to
run as a user space console. It is just going to turn into a
Frankenmonster driver with piles of device specific, special case code
in it.

There is nothing hardware specific about a framebuffer needing some
clocks to not be disabled. Tons of SoC's will have this. Which clocks,
that is hardware specific, but the framebuffer driver does not need to
worry about that, it just sees a clocks property with some random clocks
in there, and that is as generic as it gets.

quoted

I think that device specific code belongs in a device specific driver
and earlyframebuffer should handoff to it as soon as possible.

quoted

I've already explained that we not only can do that (we already have working
code proving that), but also that this is something which we absolutely need:

quoted

quoted

One example why this is necessary is e.g. to debug things where the problem
is that the right module is not included in the initrd.

A generic earlyframebuffer would show this error.

If it reserves the clocks it needs, yes. If it does not then the clocks will
be disabled before the initrd starts, and the screen will be black from then

I thought the clock/regulator clean up happened after initrd loading,
but maybe that is not the case.

A cleaner solution would then be to modify the clock/regulator clean
up to happen after driver loading is finished from initrd. Deferring
until after that completes is a fixed limit, everything is sitting
there in RAM. I would not propose extending it until harddisk based
loading happens.

So there are two ways to do this...
1) modify things like earlyconsole to protect device specific resource
(I think this is a bad idea)

Why is this a bad idea? If the bootloader tells us exactly which resources
are needed, then earlyconsole can claim them, and release them on
handover to the real display driver.

Jon, can you please answer this ? I really really want to know why people
think this is such a bad idea. Understanding why people think this is a bad
idea is necessary to be able to come up with an alternative solution.

quoted

quoted

2) delay the clock/regulator cleanup until after there is a fixed
window for device specific drivers to load in. Loading from initrd is
a fixed window.

As I already explained by example in another mail, this won't work:

"delaying over the initrd is not helpful. Not having the real driver
load for whatever reasons, is not necessarily a boot blocking event,
and if it us just missing will not lead to any error messages.

So the boot will continue normally with a black screen, and things are
still impossible to debug."

We've been down the whole delay till $random point in time thing in the
past with storage enumeration, where you need to wait for say all members
of a raid set to show up. The lesson learned from that is that you should
not wait $random time / event, but wait for the actual storage device to
show up.

And this is just like that, we need to wait for the actual display driver
to have loaded and taken over before "cleaning up" the clocks used by
the display engine.

I guess we could just delay all clock cleanup until then, not really
pretty, and I still prefer to just list the clocks in the simplefb
dtnode, but if this version would be acceptable to all involved, I can
live with it.

Mike, would a patch adding 2 calls like these to the clock core be
acceptable ?  :

clk_block_disable_unused()
clk_unblock_disable_unused()

Where an earlyconsole driver can then call clk_block_disable_unused(),
which will turn any calls to clk_disable_unused into a nop.

Is there a way to use the existing eprobe_defer system to do this?

No, that is not what it is intended for (at all). If we go this way
2 subsystem specific calls for this is the best way to deal with this.

Regards,

Hans