On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 01:08:43AM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 14:14:19 -0400 Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 06:05:03PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 11:31:00 -0400 From: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 04:25:51PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 10:57:10 -0400 Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 03:51:59PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote: > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:31:19 -0500 > Samuel Holland samuel@sholland.org wrote: > > Hi Samuel, Tom, > > > This series brings all of our devicetrees up to date with Linux. > > > > Older SoCs (before A83T) have not been synchronized in over 3 years. > > And I don't have any of this hardware to test. But there are not major > > changes to those devicetrees either. > > > > The big motivation for including older SoCs in this update is converting > > the USB PHY driver to get its VBUS detection GPIO/regulator from the > > devicetree instead of from a pin name in Kconfig. Many older boards had > > those properties added or fixed since the last devicetree sync. This PHY > > driver change is necessary to complete the DM_GPIO migration. > > > > A couple of breaking changes were made to several SoCs' devicetrees in > > Linux relating to the "r_intc" interrupt controller. New kernels support > > old devicetrees, but not the other way around. So to be most compatible > > and avoid regressions, those changes are skipped here. > > Many thanks for considering this! I just skimmed over the A64 and H6 > patches, and this is indeed the only difference. > > But while I love this pragmatic approach, and would be happy to take this, > this goes against our own rules, and more importantly against Tom's one's: > to take only direct DT file copies from the kernel tree. > > Tom, can you give your opinion here? As Samuel mentioned above, the > current mainline DTs wouldn't boot on older kernels (the changes affect > critical devices), so this spoils stable distro and installer kernels, > when using $fdtcontroladdr, for instance when booting via UEFI. > > As a side effect of always defining SYS_SOC to "sunxi", we cannot easily > use per-SoC DT overrides using sun50i-a64-u-boot.dtsi, for instance. > > For context, those changed properties were in the mainline kernel tree at > some point, but have been amended since. So it's not some random change.
So, this is I guess a bit annoying. But, we aren't at the point where the common use case is the downstream OS using the DTB we've loaded and are using, are we? I mean, we can't be, as ours are so far out of date, so this will only be an option when we use a recent DT ourself. So we should be able to sync in the changes and update our code, as they can't be using $fdtcontroladdr in this case, right? Or am I missing the use case that's in the wild atm? Thanks!
While it sounds like the DTs are wildly out of date, this mostly affects secondary functionality. The mainline updates for the 64-bit SoCs are:
- H6: adding the VP9 video h/w codec and an additional wakeup timer
- A64: adding GPU DVFS, adding DRAM DVFS, add support for secondary
digital audio interfaces, plus the wakeup timer Also there are cosmetic changes, like changing node names to make them binding compliant. So those DT updates are really only important for mobile devices like the Pinephone, which probably don't use UEFI booting.
At the moment I boot distro grubs and installers just fine, and without losing any real functionality (minus suspend/resume, maybe). The out-of-the-box default boot works now, and would break when pulling in the pure mainline DTs. Plus FreeBSD (which relies more heavily on UEFI, IIUC), can only deal with the older DTs (#interrupt-cells for r_intc must be 2).
I guess the first point is, yes, we should sync in what we can sync in, to bring things closer to proper alignment. I further guess that given that we have to support both "new Linux" and "not Linux", we have to keep the old style DT information instead as that's how compatibility is supposed to be handled? I'm adding in Rob here since this still reads a bit confusing as to what's supposed to happen, but maybe we also just need to check in with some other-OS folks to see what their plan is?
My goal with OpenBSD has always been to make the OS boot with the DT built into U-Boot, but to allow users to use a more up-to-date Linux DT by putting the apropriate .dtb file on the ESP. However it is easy to miss changes that break backwards compatibility of the bindings in the noise of other changes. So in many cases we only notice this when the changes make it into U-Boot and we update the OpenBSD U-Boot port.
I'll drag out one of my A64 boards and see what needs to be done to support the routing of these interrupts through r_intc.
In FreeBSD the change would be fairly small, I think: just ignoring the first parameter of an r_intc interrupt specifier when it advertises #interrupt-cells = <3>. In OpenBSD I don't find the allwinner,sun6i-a31-r-intc (or any other intc related) compatible string at all, and so far we just lose the NMI from the PMIC. But this would radically change with the new DT: now the two PIOs and the RTC are routed through that IRQ controller, so they would probably fail probing.
So, does that mean the plan is to keep the r_intc changes out of U-Boot for now, but we can sync the rest, and come up with a plan to fully update in time?
That's one possible solution, yes, and so far the easiest, it provides a good balance between features and compatibility. Theoretically we can never fully sync, unless we decide to no longer support those older OSes (older Linux kernels and (current) *BSD).
I believe saying older OSes need to load and pass their device tee, rather than be able to rely on the run-time one, is reasonable. We need to document this somewhere, and then specifically call this out in release emails. But, it seems like a reasonable compromise for supporting older OSes.