On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 01:38:39PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Andre,
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 10:26, Andre Przywara andre.przywara@arm.com wrote:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 19:45:06 +0000 Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 17:13, Andre Przywara andre.przywara@arm.com wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 13:38:58 -0600 Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Simon,
Hi Heinrich,
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 at 14:20, Heinrich Schuchardt heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com wrote:
On 11/1/23 19:05, Andre Przywara wrote: > On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:55:50 +0200 > Heinrich Schuchardt heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com wrote: > > Hi Heinrich, > >> The Zkr ISA extension (ratified Nov 2021) introduced the seed CSR. It >> provides an interface to a physical entropy source. >> >> A RNG driver based on the seed CSR is provided. It depends on >> mseccfg.sseed being set in the SBI firmware. > > As you might have seen, I added a similar driver for the respective Arm > functionality: > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20230830113230.3925868-1-andre.przywara@arm.c... > > And I see that you seem to use the same mechanism to probe and init the > driver: U_BOOT_DRVINFO and fail in probe() if the feature is not > implemented. > One downside of this approach is that the driver is always loaded (and > visible in the DM tree), even with the feature not being available. > That doesn't seem too much of a problem on the first glance, but it > occupies a device number, and any subsequent other DM_RNG devices > (like virtio-rng) typically get higher device numbers. So without > the feature, but with virtio-rng, I get: > VExpress64# rng 0 > No RNG device
Why do we get this? If the device is not there, the bind() function can return -ENODEV
I see this in U-Boot:
U_BOOT_DRVINFO(cpu_arm_rndr) = {
We should not use this.
Agreed.
Use the devicetree.
No, this is definitely not something for the DT, at least not on ARM. It's perfectly discoverable via the architected CPU ID registers. Similar to PCI and USB devices, which we don't probe via the DT as well.
It's arguably not proper "driver" material per se, as I've argued before, but it's the simplest solution and fits in nicely otherwise.
I was wondering if it might be something for UCLASS_CPU, something like a "CPU feature bus": to let devices register on one on the many CPU features (instead of compatible strings), then only bind() those drivers it the respective bit is set.
Does that make sense? Would that be doable without boiling the ocean? As I don't know if we see many users apart from this.
I have seen this so many times, where people want to avoid putting things in the DT and then are surprised that everything is difficult, broken and confusing. Why not just follow the rules? It is not just about whether we can avoid it, etc. It is about how devices fit together cohesively in the system, and how U-Boot operates.
A devicetree is only for peripherals *that cannot be located by probing*.
I have to stop you there. It absolutely is not limited to that.
It is limited to that if we're going to keep using the device trees that Linux uses. Full stop. There's not really wiggle room there either.