Re: [PATCH v4 19/21] drivers/of: Support adding sub-tree

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Sun, 2015-06-07 at 08:54 +0100, Grant Likely wrote:

quoted

quoted

IE. conceptually, what overlays do today is quite rooted around the idea
of having a fixed "base" DT and some pre-compiled DTB overlays that
get added/removed. The design completely ignore the idea of a FW that
maintains a "live" tree which we want to keep in sync, which is what we
want to do here, or what we could do with a "live" open firmware
implementation.

Right, which is exactly the reason for the changeset/overlay split.
Overlays assume a fixed base, and that overlays are kind of like plug-in
modules. changeset makes no such assumption.

So you suggest we create a function that takes an fdt and an "anchor" as input,
and expands that FDT below that anchor, but does so by using the changeset API
under the hood ?

Even that looks somewhat tricky (turn that bit of FDT into a pile of changeset
actions), however, I can see how we could create a new function inside changeset
to attach a subtree.

Ie. of_attach_subtree() (which could have it's own reconfig action but we
don't care that much yet), which takes an expanded subtree and an anchor, and
calls of_attach_node() in effect for all nodes in there.

We could then have a two pass mechanism in our hotplug code:

 - Expand the bit of fdt into a separate tree
 - Use of_attach_subtree to "add" that subtree to the main tree

What do you think ?

I like that.

g.

On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 10:34:13PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 2015-06-07 at 08:54 +0100, Grant Likely wrote:

quoted

quoted

IE. conceptually, what overlays do today is quite rooted around the idea
of having a fixed "base" DT and some pre-compiled DTB overlays that
get added/removed. The design completely ignore the idea of a FW that
maintains a "live" tree which we want to keep in sync, which is what we
want to do here, or what we could do with a "live" open firmware
implementation.

Right, which is exactly the reason for the changeset/overlay split.
Overlays assume a fixed base, and that overlays are kind of like plug-in
modules. changeset makes no such assumption.

So you suggest we create a function that takes an fdt and an "anchor" as input,
and expands that FDT below that anchor, but does so by using the changeset API
under the hood ?

Even that looks somewhat tricky (turn that bit of FDT into a pile of changeset
actions), however, I can see how we could create a new function inside changeset
to attach a subtree.

Ie. of_attach_subtree() (which could have it's own reconfig action but we
don't care that much yet), which takes an expanded subtree and an anchor, and
calls of_attach_node() in effect for all nodes in there.

We could then have a two pass mechanism in our hotplug code:

 - Expand the bit of fdt into a separate tree
 - Use of_attach_subtree to "add" that subtree to the main tree

What do you think ?

I like that.

Thanks, Grant and Ben. Currently, I'm collecting more feedbacks for v5. So
it's something I will address in v6.

Thanks,
Gavin

g.