On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:48:49 +0100, Philipp Zabel <p.za...@pengutronix.de> wrote: > Hi Grant, > > thank you for the comments.
Hi Philipp, I've got lots of comments and quesitons below, but I must say thank you for doing this. It is a helpful description. > > Am Mittwoch, den 26.02.2014, 11:01 +0000 schrieb Grant Likely: > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:36:29 +0100, Philipp Zabel <p.za...@pengutronix.de> > > wrote: > > > Am Dienstag, den 18.02.2014, 16:26 +0000 schrieb Grant Likely: > > > > > > > > > > You can find it under > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/video-interfaces.txt > > > > > > > > Okay, I think I'm okay with moving the helpers, but I will make one > > > > requirement. I would like to have a short binding document describing > > > > the pattern being used. The document above talks a lot about video > > > > specific issues, but the helpers appear to be specifically about the > > > > tree walking properties of the API. > > > > > > Reusing the non-video-secific parts of video-interfaces.txt, how about > > > the following: > > > > This is good, but I have some comments. This document describes itself > > as the common way for doing a device graph within the device tree, but > > there is already a well established pattern for device graphs that is > > used by the interrupts-extended, clocks and other bindings. Those are > > all domain-specific bindings, but the core concept is one device uses > > a resource provided by another device. The resource references construct > > a graph independent from the natural FDT node graph. (ie. the interrupts > > binding forms the interrupt graph. Same for the clock binding). > > > > So, while this binding does describe a pattern for separate device > > graphs, it is by no means the only common way of doing so. > > > > I would like the document to acknowledge the difference from the > > phandle+args pattern used elsewhere and a description of when it would > > be appropriate to use this instead of a simpler binding. > > Alright. The main point of this binding is that the devices may have > multiple distinct ports that each can be connected to other devices. > So, contrary to the other graph bindings, devices are not simple nodes > in a directed graph. For example a single capture device with two > separate inputs connected to camera sensors: > > ,--------. > | cam [port]-. ,-----------------. > `--------´ `-[port@0] capture | > ,---------. ,-[port@1] interface | > | cam [port]-´ `-----------------´ > `---------´ Bear with me, I'm going to comment on each point. I'm not criticizing, but I do want to understand the HW design. In particular I want to understand why the linkage is treated as bidirectional instead of one device being the master. In this specific example, what would be managing the transfer? Is there an overarching driver that assembles the pieces, or would you expect individual drivers to find each other? > Or two separate display controllers with two parallel outputs each, a > 4-port multiplexer, and an encoder (e.g. lvds): > > ,------------------. > | display [port@0]--. ,-------------. > | controller [port@1]-. `-[port@0] | > `------------------´ `--[port@1] mux | > ,------------------. ,--[port@2] | ,-------------. > | display [port@0]-´ ,-[port@3] [port@4]--[port] encoder | > | controller [port@1]--´ `-------------´ `-------------´ > `------------------´ Similar question here, how is the above complex assembled into a logical device? Is there an overarching controller device for this component complex? > Optionally, the same with the multiplexer integrated into the > encoder device: > > ,------------------. > | display [port@0]--. ,----------------. > | controller [port@1]-. `-[port@0] | > `------------------´ `--[port@1] encoder | > ,------------------. ,--[port@2] with mux | > | display [port@0]-´ ,-[port@3] | > | controller [port@1]--´ `----------------´ > `------------------´ > > Or display controller, encoder, and panel: > > ,--------. ,---------. > | dc [port]--[port@0] | > `--------´ | encoder | ,-----------. > | [port@1]--[port] panel | > `---------´ `-----------´ In all of the above examples I see a unidirectional data flow. There are producer ports and consumer ports. Is there any (reasonable) possibility of peer ports that are bidirectional? > > > > "Common bindings for device graphs" > > > > > > General concept > > > --------------- > > > > > > The hierarchical organisation of the device tree is well suited to > > > describe > > > control flow to devices, but data flow between devices that work together > > > to > > > form a logical compound device can follow arbitrarily complex graphs. > > > > I would argue that this pattern isn't necessarily restricted to data > > flow descriptions. It wants to describe linkage between devices that are > > sufficiently complex that the simple binding doesn't do the job. > > Ok. In principle it would be possible to use the same scheme for other > connections than data links. > > > > The device tree graph bindings allow to describe data bus connections > > > between > > > individual devices, that can't be inferred from device tree parent-child > > > relationships. The common bindings do not contain any information about > > > the > > > direction or type of data flow, they just map connections. Specific > > > properties > > > of the connections can be set depending on the type of connection. To see > > > how this binding applies to video pipelines, see for example > > > Documentation/device-tree/bindings/media/video-interfaces.txt. > > > > Even if you don't want to declare the direction of data flow, there does > > need to be some guidance as to how the binding is constructed. Does > > device A point to device B? Or the other way around? Why would someone > > choose one over the other? I don't want to see a situation where A & B > > point to each other. Things get complex if the graph is allowed to be > > cyclical. > > According to video-interfaces.txt, it is expected that endpoints contain > phandles pointing to the remote endpoint on both sides. I'd like to > leave this up to the more specialized bindings, but I can see that this > makes enumerating the connections starting from each device tree node > easier, for example at probe time. This has come up in the past. That approach comes down to premature optimization at the expense of making the data structure more prone to inconsistency. I consider it to be a bad pattern. Backlinks are good for things like dynamically linked lists that need to be fast and the software fully manages the links. For a data structure like the FDT it is better to have the data in one place, and one place only. Besides, computers are *good* at parsing data structures. :-) I appreciate that existing drivers may be using the backlinks, but I strongly recommend not doing it for new users. > If the back links are not provided in the device tree, a device at the > receiving end of a remote-endpoint phandle can only know about connected > remote ports after the kernel parsed the whole graph and created the > back links itself. A whole tree parse isn't expensive. We do it all the time. Besides, nothing useful can be done until a driver has taken responsibility for each side of the connection. I would expect to need a registry anyway for pairing things up. If one side gets connected without having the backlink, then it should get registered and wait until another port gets registered that does have the linkage. In which case a whole tree parse isn't ever necessary. I think the common code would be even more useful if it implemented a port registry helper in addition to the parsing. That would make the decoding transparent. > > > Each endpoint can contain a 'remote-endpoint' phandle property that > > > points to > > > the corresponding endpoint in the port of the remote device. Two > > > 'endpoint' > > > nodes are linked with each other through their 'remote-endpoint' phandles. > > > > I really don't like this aspect. It is far too easy to get wrong. > > On the other hand it is really easy to test for and warn about missing > or misdirected backlinks. I don't think that makes it a better data structure. > > Graphs should be one direction only. > > But this is not what the current binding in video-interfaces.txt > describes. I don't think it is a good idea to explicitly forbid > backlinks in this binding. Nah, I disagree. The binding document /should/ forbid it to make it really clear what the common pattern is. The code doesn't have to enforce it (you don't want to break existing platforms), but the document should be blunt. Another thought. In terms of the pattern, I would add a recommendation that there should be a way to identify ports of a particular type. ie. If I were using the pattern to implement an patch bay of DSP filters, where each input and output, then each target node should have a unique identifier property analogous to "interrupt-controller" or "gpio-controller". In this fictitious example I would probably choose "audiostream-input-port" and "audiostream-output-port" as empty properties in the port nodes. (I'm not suggesting a change to the existing binding, but making a recommendation to new users). g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
