On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 06:29:38PM +0200, Kory Maincent wrote: > On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 08:11:48 -0600 > Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 11:32:13AM +0200, Kory Maincent wrote: > > > On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 17:42:40 -0600 > > > Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 05:30:15PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 at 15:44, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 02:38:23PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Kory, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 at 10:34, Kory Maincent > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Migrate TI board cape detection from legacy extension support to > > > > > > > > the new UCLASS-based extension board framework. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kory Maincent <[email protected]> > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > -int extension_board_scan(struct list_head *extension_list) > > > > > > > > +static int ti_extension_board_scan(struct alist > > > > > > > > *extension_list) > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > unsigned char addr; > > > > > > > > int num_capes = 0; > > > > > > > > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ int extension_board_scan(struct list_head > > > > > > > > *extension_list) struct am335x_cape_eeprom_id eeprom_header; > > > > > > > > char process_cape_part_number[17] = {'0'}; > > > > > > > > char process_cape_version[5] = {'0'}; > > > > > > > > - struct extension *cape; > > > > > > > > + struct extension cape = {0}, *_cape; > > > > > > > > struct udevice *dev; > > > > > > > > u8 cursor = 0; > > > > > > > > int ret, i; > > > > > > > > @@ -78,22 +78,20 @@ int extension_board_scan(struct list_head > > > > > > > > *extension_list) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose that a method called scan() could be added to the uclass > > > > > > > and implemented by this driver. > > > > > > I don't understand what do you mean by method? Is it different to the > > > UBOOT driver scan ops I have designed? > > > > > > > > > > > printf("BeagleBone Cape: %s (0x%x)\n", > > > > > > > > eeprom_header.board_name, addr); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - cape = calloc(1, sizeof(struct extension)); > > > > > > > > - if (!cape) { > > > > > > > > - printf("Error in memory allocation\n"); > > > > > > > > - return num_capes; > > > > > > > > - } > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > - snprintf(cape->overlay, sizeof(cape->overlay), > > > > > > > > "%s-%s.dtbo", > > > > > > > > + snprintf(cape.overlay, sizeof(cape.overlay), > > > > > > > > "%s-%s.dtbo", process_cape_part_number, process_cape_version); > > > > > > > > - strlcpy(cape->name, eeprom_header.board_name, > > > > > > > > + strlcpy(cape.name, eeprom_header.board_name, > > > > > > > > sizeof(eeprom_header.board_name)); > > > > > > > > - strlcpy(cape->version, process_cape_version, > > > > > > > > + strlcpy(cape.version, process_cape_version, > > > > > > > > sizeof(process_cape_version)); > > > > > > > > - strlcpy(cape->owner, eeprom_header.manufacturer, > > > > > > > > + strlcpy(cape.owner, eeprom_header.manufacturer, > > > > > > > > sizeof(eeprom_header.manufacturer) + 1); > > > > > > > > - list_add_tail(&cape->list, extension_list); > > > > > > > > + _cape = alist_add(extension_list, cape); > > > > > > > > + if (!_cape) > > > > > > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > > > num_capes++; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > return num_capes; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +U_BOOT_EXTENSION(cape, ti_extension_board_scan); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can the extension information go in the devicetree, so boards can > > > > > > > select their scheme that way? > > > > > > > > > > > > Since we're scanning to see what extension boards are present and so > > > > > > what device tree overlays to apply, I don't think that can work? > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that the scanning process is board-specific. For > > > > > example we would not want the Beagle mechanism to be compiled into > > > > > rpi. The idea of scanning things in a board-specific way seems like a > > > > > driver to me. Note there is also the SYSINFO uclass which can do > > > > > similar things. > > > > > > > > > > The overlays being applied here are additions to what should already > > > > > be a fairly complete devicetree. > > > > > > > > > > If this isn't possible, then where is the information known? > > > > > > Oh, so you would prefer to have something like the sysinfo drivers. > > > > > > > You're commenting on a patch to the TI specific code, that's only used > > > > by TI SoC using platforms that opt-in to the externally defined EEPROM > > > > format for these "capes". Perhaps your feedback would make more sense in > > > > some other part of the patch series? But even then, I'm not sure it > > > > makes sense? > > > > > > I am ok to move the cape scan detection code to a standalone driver with a > > > devicetree compatible match. Just wondering what are the advantages to use > > > standalone drivers instead of having the code in the specific board code > > > as > > > done in this series. > > > > I'm not sure there is an advantage. Especially since in theory we could > > have more than one built in, and if ti_extension_board_scan(...) doesn't > > find anything (because the EEPROM is missing/wrong) we could still then > > call rpi_extension_board_scan(...) and look for that formatted type of > > EEPROM and then chipanddip_extension_board_scan(...) and look for that > > and so forth. These extensions are nominally discoverable and so don't > > need device tree compatibles, was some of the point of all this I would > > have sworn... > > I think, he means a driver for each type of custom extension board scan > functions (4 until now). The U-boot devicetree would be like this: > extension_scan { > compatible = "bone-cape-scan"; > }; > > We could avoid the build of several extension drivers using Kconfig choice > symbol to select only one builtin. > > On my side I don't really have opinions, it is a matter of code design. For > now > I don't see real argument to tilt the balance except to do something like > sysinfo. We need more arguments from Simon.
Yes, and needing to go back to modifying the device trees seems a step backwards here, and something that will be hard to argue for upstream. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
