Thread (14 messages) flat view 14 messages, 7 authors, 2014-06-17

Re: Unifying cape overlays into boot .dtb for BeagleBoard.org boards

From: Grant Likely <hidden>
Date: 2014-06-17 13:50:35
Also in: linux-arm-kernel, linux-omap

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:09:31 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:22:50AM -0400, Jason Kridner wrote:
quoted
Adding devicetree and linux-arm-kernel lists based on feedback on IRC...

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Jason Kridner [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
I'd like to discuss moving our current library of cape devicetree
overlay sources into a single tree, including the boot .dtb files for
BeagleBoard.org boards and moving towards enabling as much of the cape
support into a single boot-time .dtb file with an approach similar to
the cape-universal overlay
(https://github.com/cdsteinkuehler/beaglebone-universal-io), but not
in an overlay.

First of all, I want to note this doesn't change my view on the
importance of mainline support for devicetree overlays. They are still
absolutely critical and highly useful, solving problems that cannot be
solved through boot-time devicetrees. I'm simply looking for an
approach that will complement the availability of overlays and provide
the best user experience.
Here's the most obvious question in the world on this topic.  Are capes
hot-pluggable?

Looking at the posts on google+ from David Anders, they're using pin
headers for connectivity, with no additional protection against hot-
plugging, and no sequencing of pin connection.  In other words, they are
not hot-pluggable.

So, why do we need to add a load of infrastructure to the kernel to allow
the device tree to be modified at run time?  At present, the way the
entire DT infrastructure works is that it assumes the DT remains static
and never changes - this applies not only to the core DT code, but also
to all the drivers which have been converted.
As others have pointed out, capes aren't the only use case. pseries
already modifies the tree at runtime, and the FPGA users want the
ability to add/remove additional DT blocks. I've also heard from
hobbiest/maker developers that by deferring the load of additional data
to userspace means they don't need to mess with the boot path once it is
working. The feature is coming.

g.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help