From: Grant Likely <hidden> Date: 2007-10-15 16:08:46
Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to
booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus
with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc &
microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only
(the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category).
Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings
out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory?
Perhaps something like this; each file contains common bindings for
the type of device and device specific properties:
Documentation/of/
Documentation/of/README - Description of the purpose and layout of
this directory
Documentation/of/net.txt - network device bindings (eth, MDIO, phy, etc)
Documentation/of/serial.txt - serial device bindings
Documentation/of/misc.txt - anything that doesn't fit anywhere else yet.
Documentation/of/soc/* - System on chip stuff that doesn't fit will
into established device types; possibly a separate file for each chip.
Documentation/of/usb.txt - usb blah blah blah
Documentation/of/whatever - you get the picture.
Thoughts?
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
grant.likely@secretlab.ca
(403) 399-0195
From: Olof Johansson <hidden> Date: 2007-10-15 16:49:08
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to
booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus
with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc &
microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only
(the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category).
Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings
out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory?
The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people would like it to be,
not open firmware, nor is it the same as their bindings. So I think we'd
be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to associate them together.
All it would take is a rename of the directory, unfortunately i don't
have any suggestions on better names though.
Perhaps something like this; each file contains common bindings for
the type of device and device specific properties:
Documentation/of/
Documentation/of/README - Description of the purpose and layout of
this directory
Documentation/of/net.txt - network device bindings (eth, MDIO, phy, etc)
Documentation/of/serial.txt - serial device bindings
Documentation/of/misc.txt - anything that doesn't fit anywhere else yet.
Documentation/of/soc/* - System on chip stuff that doesn't fit will
into established device types; possibly a separate file for each chip.
Documentation/of/usb.txt - usb blah blah blah
Documentation/of/whatever - you get the picture.
Thoughts?
Looks reasonable. The other way to cut it would be to slice along vendor
boundaries, but I think I like the functional partitioning you suggested
better.
-Olof
From: Grant Likely <hidden> Date: 2007-10-15 17:14:45
On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
quoted
Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to
booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus
with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc &
microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only
(the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category).
Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings
out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory?
The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people would like it to be,
not open firmware, nor is it the same as their bindings. So I think we'd
be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to associate them together.
All it would take is a rename of the directory, unfortunately i don't
have any suggestions on better names though.
I think I need to stick with the of prefix. All the support API in
include/linux/of_* is prefixed with "of_" already, so convention is
established.
How about Documentation/of-device-tree?
quoted
Perhaps something like this; each file contains common bindings for
the type of device and device specific properties:
Documentation/of/
Documentation/of/README - Description of the purpose and layout of
this directory
Documentation/of/net.txt - network device bindings (eth, MDIO, phy, etc)
Documentation/of/serial.txt - serial device bindings
Documentation/of/misc.txt - anything that doesn't fit anywhere else yet.
Documentation/of/soc/* - System on chip stuff that doesn't fit will
into established device types; possibly a separate file for each chip.
Documentation/of/usb.txt - usb blah blah blah
Documentation/of/whatever - you get the picture.
Thoughts?
Looks reasonable. The other way to cut it would be to slice along vendor
boundaries, but I think I like the functional partitioning you suggested
better.
I think vendor partitioning makes sense for non-common devices that
don't easily fit into a particular mold (soc glue nodes come to mind).
Other than that, the functional partitioning
lets us start with defining common property usage for a given device
type and follow up with device specific properties.
Thanks for the feedback,
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
grant.likely@secretlab.ca
(403) 399-0195
From: Olof Johansson <hidden> Date: 2007-10-15 17:35:02
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people would like it to be,
not open firmware, nor is it the same as their bindings. So I think we'd
be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to associate them together.
All it would take is a rename of the directory, unfortunately i don't
have any suggestions on better names though.
I think I need to stick with the of prefix. All the support API in
include/linux/of_* is prefixed with "of_" already, so convention is
established.
How about Documentation/of-device-tree?
Sounds good to me, even though it doesn't really address the original
OF separation comment. :)
Maybe it's enough to document the difference between the linux-specific
flat device tree bindings and classic 1275-style bindings in the top
readme in that directory. Either way, it's not worth arguing over,
your suggestion is good enough.
quoted
Looks reasonable. The other way to cut it would be to slice along vendor
boundaries, but I think I like the functional partitioning you suggested
better.
I think vendor partitioning makes sense for non-common devices that
don't easily fit into a particular mold (soc glue nodes come to mind).
Other than that, the functional partitioning
lets us start with defining common property usage for a given device
type and follow up with device specific properties.
Yep, it could always be added down the road in case it's needed.
-Olof
From: David Gibson <hidden> Date: 2007-10-16 02:38:45
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
quoted
Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to
booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus
with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc &
microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only
(the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category).
Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings
out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory?
The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people would like it to be,
not open firmware, nor is it the same as their bindings. So I think we'd
be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to associate them together.
All it would take is a rename of the directory, unfortunately i don't
have any suggestions on better names though.
I think I need to stick with the of prefix. All the support API in
include/linux/of_* is prefixed with "of_" already, so convention is
established.
How about Documentation/of-device-tree?
It seems a little counterintuitive to change names from "booting
*without* of" to "of *"...
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
From: Grant Likely <hidden> Date: 2007-10-16 03:02:13
On 10/15/07, David Gibson [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
quoted
On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
quoted
Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to
booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus
with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc &
microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only
(the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category).
Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings
out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory?
The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people would like it to be,
not open firmware, nor is it the same as their bindings. So I think we'd
be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to associate them together.
All it would take is a rename of the directory, unfortunately i don't
have any suggestions on better names though.
I think I need to stick with the of prefix. All the support API in
include/linux/of_* is prefixed with "of_" already, so convention is
established.
How about Documentation/of-device-tree?
It seems a little counterintuitive to change names from "booting
*without* of" to "of *"...
Heh; true. The *only* reason I think it should be 'of-<anything>' is
because *all* the support APIs are named that way. I'll happily use
another name if I get the impression that most of us in our little
group think it should be something else.
Cheers,
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
grant.likely@secretlab.ca
(403) 399-0195
From: David Gibson <hidden> Date: 2007-10-16 03:24:15
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 09:02:09PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
On 10/15/07, David Gibson [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
quoted
On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
quoted
Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to
booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus
with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc &
microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only
(the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category).
Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings
out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory?
The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people would like it to be,
not open firmware, nor is it the same as their bindings. So I think we'd
be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to associate them together.
All it would take is a rename of the directory, unfortunately i don't
have any suggestions on better names though.
I think I need to stick with the of prefix. All the support API in
include/linux/of_* is prefixed with "of_" already, so convention is
established.
How about Documentation/of-device-tree?
It seems a little counterintuitive to change names from "booting
*without* of" to "of *"...
Heh; true. The *only* reason I think it should be 'of-<anything>' is
because *all* the support APIs are named that way. I'll happily use
No, not all, just most...
And do bear in mind that a lot of those accessor functions are at
least valid both on of and flat-tree systems.
another name if I get the impression that most of us in our little
group think it should be something else.
Cheers,
g.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 9:09 AM
To: linuxppc-dev; microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au
Subject: Refactor booting-without-of.txt
=20
Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to
booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus
with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc &
microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only
(the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category).
=20
Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings
out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory?
=20
Perhaps something like this; each file contains common bindings for
the type of device and device specific properties:
=20
Documentation/of/
Documentation/of/README - Description of the purpose and layout of
this directory
Documentation/of/net.txt - network device bindings (eth,=20
MDIO, phy, etc)
Documentation/of/serial.txt - serial device bindings
Documentation/of/misc.txt - anything that doesn't fit=20
anywhere else yet.
Documentation/of/soc/* - System on chip stuff that doesn't fit will
into established device types; possibly a separate file for each chip.
Documentation/of/usb.txt - usb blah blah blah
Documentation/of/whatever - you get the picture.
=20
Thoughts?
g.
=20
--=20
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
grant.likely@secretlab.ca
(403) 399-0195
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
=20
=20
From: Grant Likely <hidden> Date: 2007-10-16 17:17:58
On 10/16/07, Stephen Neuendorffer [off-list ref] wrote:
On a similar note, is there interest in actually factoring the device
tree code out from the different architectures into a common codebase?
It's already happened somewhat. (Look in drivers/of and include/linux/of*.h)
However, I don't think any of the stuff specific to flattened device
trees is being factored out of arch/powerpc yet.
Cheers,
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
grant.likely@secretlab.ca
(403) 399-0195
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 8:24 PM
To: Grant Likely
Cc: Olof Johansson; linuxppc-dev; microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au
Subject: Re: Refactor booting-without-of.txt
=20
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 09:02:09PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
quoted
On 10/15/07, David Gibson [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
quoted
On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
quoted
Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to
booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little=20
unwieldy. Plus
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
with more than one arch using the device tree=20
(powerpc, sparc &
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't=20
necessarily powerpc only
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
(the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category).
Anyone have comments about splitting the expected=20
device tree bindings
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory?
The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people=20
would like it to be,
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
not open firmware, nor is it the same as their=20
bindings. So I think we'd
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to=20
associate them together.
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
All it would take is a rename of the directory,=20
unfortunately i don't
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
have any suggestions on better names though.
I think I need to stick with the of prefix. All the=20
support API in
quoted
quoted
quoted
include/linux/of_* is prefixed with "of_" already, so=20
convention is
quoted
quoted
quoted
established.
How about Documentation/of-device-tree?
It seems a little counterintuitive to change names from "booting
*without* of" to "of *"...
=20
Heh; true. The *only* reason I think it should be=20
'of-<anything>' is
quoted
because *all* the support APIs are named that way. I'll happily use
=20
No, not all, just most...
=20
And do bear in mind that a lot of those accessor functions are at
least valid both on of and flat-tree systems.
=20
quoted
another name if I get the impression that most of us in our little
group think it should be something else.
=20
Cheers,
g.
=20
=20
How about just 'device-tree', referring to any source, and then
of-device-tree and flat-device-tree to document how the device tree is
constructed.
The fact that the API is poorly named is something that can always be
fixed (and perhaps should be earlier rather than later).
Steve
From: Grant Likely <hidden> Date: 2007-10-16 19:39:43
On 10/16/07, Stephen Neuendorffer [off-list ref] wrote:
How about just 'device-tree', referring to any source, and then
of-device-tree and flat-device-tree to document how the device tree is
constructed.
The fact that the API is poorly named is something that can always be
fixed (and perhaps should be earlier rather than later).
It's not so much that it's poorly named; it's just historically named. :-)
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
grant.likely@secretlab.ca
(403) 399-0195
-----Original Message-----
From: linuxppc-dev-bounces+b08248=3Dfreescale.com@ozlabs.org=20
[mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+b08248=3Dfreescale.com@ozlabs.org]=20
On Behalf Of Grant Likely
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 11:09 AM
To: linuxppc-dev; microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au
Subject: Refactor booting-without-of.txt
=20
Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to
booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus
with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc &
microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only
(the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category).
=20
Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings
out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory?
=20
Perhaps something like this; each file contains common bindings for
the type of device and device specific properties:
=20
Documentation/of/
Documentation/of/README - Description of the purpose and layout of
this directory
Documentation/of/net.txt - network device bindings (eth,=20
MDIO, phy, etc)
Documentation/of/serial.txt - serial device bindings
Documentation/of/misc.txt - anything that doesn't fit=20
anywhere else yet.
Documentation/of/soc/* - System on chip stuff that doesn't fit will
into established device types; possibly a separate file for each chip.
Documentation/of/usb.txt - usb blah blah blah
Documentation/of/whatever - you get the picture.
=20
I agree in principle with what your are proposing.
One other thing to consider-- as has been publicly=20
announced in several forums, a committee in power.org
(including several folks on this thread) is working
on a standard called the ePAPR which in general is
attempting to standardize the base set of requirements
and boot conventions that apply to the flat device tree.
There will not be much device specific stuff to=20
start with.
The ePAPR document is actually quite far a long
and is well beyond the 'idea' stage.
The one point is that we hope that the device tree
with be useful for other embedded OSes beyond Linux.
So long term, I think this documentation should
be pulled out of the kernel source and put
on a public wiki that is not tied directly to Linux.
What you are proposing is a good start...
Stuart