On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref] wrote:

On Monday, October 19, 2015 10:58:25 AM Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:29 AM, David Woodhouse [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 15:50 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

quoted

But the point I'm making is that we are working towards *fixing* that,
and *not* using DT-specific code in places where we should be using the
generic APIs.

What is the plan for fixing things here?  It's not obvious (at least to
me) that we don't want to have the subsystems having knowledge of how
they are bound to a specific firmware which is what you seem to imply
here.

I don't know that there *is* a coherent plan here to address it all.

Certainly, we *will* need subsystems to have firmware-specific
knowledge in some cases. Take GPIO as an example; ACPI *has* a way to
describe GPIO, and properties which reference GPIO pins are intended to
work through that — while in DT, properties which reference GPIO pins
will have different contents. They'll be compatible at the driver
level, in the sense that there's a call to get a given GPIO given the
property name, but the subsystems *will* be doing different things
behind the scenes.

My plan, such as it is, is to go through the leaf-node drivers which
almost definitely *should* be firmware-agnostic, and convert those. And
then take stock of what we have left, and work out what, if anything,
still needs to be done.

Many cases are already agnostic in the drivers in terms of the *_get()
functions. Some are DT specific, but probably because those subsystems
are new and DT only. In any case, I don't think these 1 line changes
do anything to make doing conversions here harder.

quoted

quoted

It seems like we're going to have to refactor these bits of code when
they get generalised anyway so I'm not sure that the additional cost
here is that big.

That's an acceptable answer — "we're adding legacy code here but we
know it's going to be refactored anyway". If that's true, all it takes
is a note in the commit comment to that effect. That's different from
having not thought about it :)

Considering at one point we did create a fwnode based API, we did
think about it. Plus there was little input from ACPI folks as to
whether the change was even useful for ACPI case.

Well, sorry, but who was asking whom, specifically?

You and linux-acpi have been copied on v2 and later of the entire
series I think.

The underlying problem is present in ACPI too and we don't really have a good
solution for it.  We might benefit from a common one if it existed.

The problem for DT is we don't generically know what are the
dependencies at a core level. We could know some or most dependencies
if phandles (links to other nodes) were typed, but they are not. If
the core had this information, we could simply control the device
creation to order probing. Instead, this information is encoded into
the bindings and binding parsing resides in the subsystems. That
parsing happens during probe of the client side and is done by the
subsystems (for common bindings). Since we already do the parsing at
this point, it is a convenient place to trigger the probe of the
dependency. Is ACPI going to be similar in this regard?

Fundamentally, it is a question of probe devices when their
dependencies are present or drivers ensure their dependencies are
ready. IIRC, init systems went thru a similar debate for service
dependencies.

quoted

In any case, we're talking about adding 1 line.

But also about making the driver core slighly OF-centric.

How so? The one line is in DT binding parsing code in subsystems, not
driver core. The driver core change is we add every device (that
happened to be created by DT) to the deferred probe list, so they
don't probe right away.

Sure, we need OF-specific code and ACPI-specific code wherever different
handling is required, but doing that at the driver core level seems to be
a bit of a stretch to me.

Please note that we don't really have ACPI-specific calls in the driver core,
although we might have added them long ago even before the OF stuff appeared
in the kernel for the first time.  We didn't do that, (among other things)
because we didn't want that particular firmware interface to appear special
in any way and I'm not really sure why it is now OK to make OF look special
instead.

I don't think DT is special and we avoid DT specific core changes as
much as possible. I think the difference is DT uses platform_device
and ACPI does not. It used to be separate, but got merged together
primarily to support the plethora of existing drivers. Anyway, that is
all outside of anything in this series.

If it is trivial to avoid that (and you seem to be arguing that it is), why
do we have to do it?

Sorry, I don't follow what "that" or "it" is.

Rob