On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Felix Brack fb@ltec.ch wrote:
On 23.10.2017 22:34, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Felix Brack fb@ltec.ch wrote:
On 23.10.2017 16:36, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:40 PM, Felix Brack fb@ltec.ch wrote:
On 12.10.2017 14:53, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Felix Brack fb@ltec.ch wrote: > On 12.10.2017 04:46, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Felix Brack fb@ltec.ch wrote: >>> This patch extends pmic_bind_children prefix matching. In addition to >>> the node name the property regulator-name is used while trying to match >>> prefixes. This allows assigning different drivers to regulator nodes >>> named regulator@1 and regulator@10 for example. >> >> No. See the regulator bindings: >> >> Optional properties: >> - regulator-name: A string used as a descriptive name for regulator outputs >> > The actual regulator.txt states: > > Optional properties: > - regulator-name: a string, required by the regulator uclass > > This was the reason for choosing the regulator-name property.
Mine was from the Linux Kernel. Are there two sets of bindings? Shouldn't there be just one?
Mine was from U-Boot as this is the U-Boot mailing list and things do not seem to be fully synchronized between LINUX and U-Boot.
That seems to be the underlying problem. They really should be the same. I'm not sure which platforms really follow through with this though.
>> This can vary from board to board. The name should match the power rail >> name of the board (which may not be the same as the regulator chip's >> output name). >> > Exactly. I totally agree but as stated in an earlier post: I did not > define the names for the regulators and modifying them is almost > certainly not the right way to go. Let me explain this briefly. The > regulator names I'm trying to match are those from tps65910.dtsi, an > include file. The exact same file is part of the LINUX kernel. Therefore > I resigned suggesting the modification of the node names.
First, it is an include file. Board files are free to override the name. We did that for sunxi at first, have the .dtsi file provide some default names, then have board .dts files override them with names that make more sense. Later on we just dropped the default names altogether.
I am definitely confused now, maybe we are using same terms for different things. When I'm talking about a 'name' I mean the 'node name' according to DT specification (as for instance returned by ofnode_get_name). I'm not talking about a property or a node label. The following code defines a node name 'regulator@2' ore more precisely a node named 'regulator' having unit-address 2:
vdd1_reg: regulator@2 { reg = <2>; regulator-compatible = "vdd1"; };
This is found in tps65910.dtsi include file. You say "board files are free to override the name". Hence I could include the tps65910.dtsi into my board dts file and kind of rename node 'regulator@2' by let's say 'buck_vdd1@2'? The only way of "overriding" I can think of is by not including the dtsi file and redefining all nodes.
I'm talking about the "name" as defined in the "regulator-name" property, which is what you want to match against in your patch.
So boards are definitely free to override the property by setting a new value for it. And indeed boards do that.
This is the driving idea behind my patch.
The same pattern is also seen in tps65910.dtsi and am3517-craneboard.dts. And also am335x-evm.dts, which the tps65910.dtsi was tested with.
Looking at the am3517-craneboard.dts file I don't see how node names are getting overwritten. What gets set, changed or overwritten is the node property regulator-name.
Yes. That's what I'm referring to. Doesn't this work against your attempt to bind pmic-uclass against regulator-name properties?
Well, yes, my patch works like charm. I didn't mention that it doesn't work ;-).
Now I couldn't find the binding document for tps65910, but looking at tps65217 instead, it says:
- regulators: list of regulators provided by this controller, must be named after their hardware counterparts: dcdc[1-3] and ldo[1-4]
And indeed that is what's used in the example.
Yes, exactly and correct. Again, this tps65217.txt does only exist in LINUX and not in U-Boot.
Device tree bindings are a set of rules, contracts, ABIs, whatever you call it, between the hardware description that is the device tree, and software that implement support for the hardware. Having two or more diverging sets is not an improvement. Communities should work together to have a common set of bindings.
I totally agree.
FreeBSD seems to be importing device tree bindings from Linux. There was also talk about importing bindings from other projects that have already created and implemented support for bindings that do not exist in Linux. This has been raised for the Device Tree Workshop this Thursday at OSSE/ELCE:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2017-October/004... https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2017-October/004...
If that wish from Andrew would become true it would be the ultimate solution: "I’d like it if there was a common repo for all devicetree consumers to share".
I've also raised the issue of diverging device trees and bindings:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2017-October/004...
Thanks! I hope this helps moving things into the right direction. And yes, there is quite a lot of truth in calling my patch a "dirty workaround" for broken dts and even worse dtsi files. But for U-Boot this patch could help to bridge the time gap until the real fix. Sadly I now that it could also have the exact opposite effect and lead to even more broken (with respect to binding rules) dts and dtsi files.
I'm OK with a temporary fix or workaround. But temporary means someone needs to follow up and get it where it needs to go. It should also be noted in the commit log. And the binding should be marked as a workaround for existing (broken) device trees, so people don't adapt it by mistake.
This has already been addressed in v2 patch I posted a week ago (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/827507/).
I see that now. Thanks
ChenYu