[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 4/4] simplefb: add clock handling code

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 10/02/2014 02:56 PM, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 10/02/2014 02:22 PM, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 10/01/2014 08:12 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>> On 10/01/2014 11:54 AM, jonsmirl at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> We've been over all this again and again and again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All solutions provided sofar are both tons more complicated, then the
>>>>>>> simple solution of simply having the simplefb dt node declare which
>>>>>>> clocks it needs. And to make things worse all of them sofar have
>>>>>>> unresolved issues (due to their complexity mostly).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With the clocks in the simplefb node, then all a real driver has to do,
>>>>>>> is claim those same clocks before unregistering the simplefb driver,
>>>>>>> and everything will just work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet we've been discussing this for months, all because of some
>>>>>>> vague worries from Thierry, and *only* from Thierry that this will
>>>>>>> make simplefb less generic / not abstract enough, while a simple
>>>>>>> generic clocks property is about as generic as things come.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: I haven't been following this thread, and really don't have the time to get involved, but I did want to point out one thing:
>>>>>
>>>>> As I think I mentioned very early on in this thread, one of the big concerns when simplefb was merged was that it would slowly grow and become a monster. As such, a condition of merging it was that it would not grow features like resource management at all. That means no clock/regulator/... support. It's intended as a simple stop-gap between early platform bringup and whenever a real driver exists for the HW. If you need resource management, write a HW-specific driver. The list archives presumably have a record of the discussion, but I don't know the links off the top of my head. If nobody
>>>>> other than Thierry is objecting, presumably the people who originally objected simply haven't noticed this patch/thread. I suppose it's possible they changed their mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, there's no reason that the simplefb code couldn't be refactored out into a support library that's used by both the simplefb we currently have and any new HW-specific driver. It's just that the simplefb binding and driver shouldn't grow.
>>>>
>>>> The whole reason why we want to use simplefb is not just to get things
>>>> running until HW specific driver is in place, but also to have early console
>>>> output (to help debugging boot problems on devices without a serial console),
>>>> in a world where most video drivers are build as loadable modules, so we
>>>> won't have video output until quite late into the boot process.
>>>
>>> You need both.
>>>
>>> 1) temporary early boot console -- this is nothing but an address in
>>> RAM and the x/y layout. The character set from framebuffer is built
>>> into the kernel.  The parallel to this is early-printk and how it uses
>>> the UARTs without interrupts. This console vaporizes late in the boot
>>> process -- the same thing happens with the early printk UART driver.
>>> EARLYPRINTK on the command line enables this.
>>>
>>> 2) a device specific driver -- this sits on initrd and it loaded as
>>> soon as possible. The same thing happens with the real UART driver for
>>> the console. CONSOLE= on the command line causes the transition. There
>>> is an API in the kernel to do this transition, I believe it is called
>>> set_console() but it's been a while.
>>
>> Eventually we need both, yes. But 1) should stay working until 2) loads,
>> not until some phase of the bootup is completed, but simply until 2) loads.
> 
> No, that is where you get into trouble. The device specific driver has
> to go onto initrd where it can be loaded as early in the boot process
> as possible.

This is an argument in the "you cannot do that" / "your use case is not valid"
category, IOW this is not a technical argument. You say I cannot do that I
say I can, deadlock.

I've already explained that we not only can do that (we already have working
code proving that), but also that this is something which we absolutely need:

>> One example why this is necessary is e.g. to debug things where the problem
>> is that the right module is not included in the initrd.

If we ever want ARM support to stop being about cute embedded non-sense hacks,
we must be able to have users get some meaningful output in failure cases like
this without needing to first solder a serial console to some test pads.

Regards,

Hans