Hi Simon,
On 26/7/20 11:53, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Walter,
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 08:08, Walter Lozano <walter.loz...@collabora.com> wrote:
Hi Simon
On 6/7/20 16:21, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Walter,
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 15:12, Walter Lozano <walter.loz...@collabora.com> wrote:
Based on several reports there is an increasing concern in the impact
of adding additional features to drivers based on compatible strings.
A good example of this situation is found in [1].
In order to reduce this impact and as an initial step for further
reduction, propose a new way to declare compatible strings, which allows
to only include the useful ones.
What are the useful ones?
The useful ones would be those that are used by the selected DTB by the
current configuration. The idea of this patch is to declare all the
possible compatible strings in a way that dtoc can generate code for
only those which are going to be used, and in this way avoid lots of
#ifdef like the ones shows in
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20200525202429.2146-1-ag...@denx.de/
The idea is to define compatible strings in a way to be easily parsed by
dtoc, which will be responsible to build struct udevice_id [] based on
the compatible strings present in the dtb.
Additional features can be easily added, such as define constants
depending on the presence of compatible strings, which allows to enable
code blocks only in such cases without the need of adding additional
configuration options.
[1]
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20200525202429.2146-1-ag...@denx.de/
Signed-off-by: Walter Lozano <walter.loz...@collabora.com>
---
tools/dtoc/dtb_platdata.py | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
I think dtoc should be able to parse the compatible strings as they
are today - e.g. see the tiny-dm stuff.
Yes, I agree. My idea is that dtoc parses compatible strings as they are
today but also in this new way. The reason for this is to allow dtoc to
generate the code to include the useful compatible strings. Of course,
this only makes sense if the idea of generating the compatible string
associated code is accepted.
What do you think?
I think this is useful and better than using #ifdef in the source code
for this sort of thing. We need a way to specify the driver_data value
as well, right?
Yes, I agree, it is better than #ifdef and c/ould give us some extra
functionality.
What doe you mean by driver_data value? Are you referring to the data
field? like
static struct esdhc_soc_data usdhc_imx7d_data = {
.flags = ESDHC_FLAG_USDHC | ESDHC_FLAG_STD_TUNING
| ESDHC_FLAG_HAVE_CAP1 | ESDHC_FLAG_HS200
| ESDHC_FLAG_HS400,
};
If that is the case, I was thinking in defining a constant when specific
compatible strings are enabled by dtoc, based in the above case
#ifdef FSL_ESDHC_IMX_V2
static struct esdhc_soc_data usdhc_imx7d_data = {
.flags = ESDHC_FLAG_USDHC | ESDHC_FLAG_STD_TUNING
| ESDHC_FLAG_HAVE_CAP1 | ESDHC_FLAG_HS200
| ESDHC_FLAG_HS400,
};
#endif
COMPATIBLE(FSL_ESDHC, "fsl,imx7d-usdhc", &usdhc_imx7d_data, FSL_ESDHC_IMX_V2)
So when dtoc parses COMPATIBLE and determines that compatible
"fsl,imx7d-usdhc" should be added it also defines FSL_ESDHC_IMX_V2.
This is alsoAs I comment you in the tread about tiny-dm I think that we
can save some space following your suggestions, and for instance implement
Re naming, perhaps DT_COMPAT() might be better than COMPATIBLE()? Or
even a name that indicates that it is optional, like DT_OPT_COMPAT() ?
I totally agree, naming is very important, and DT_COMPAT() is much better.
What I don't fully understand is what are the cases for DT_OPT_COMPAT(),
could you please clarify?
Regards,
Walter
