[PATCH 2/2] Convert smsc911x to use ACPI as well as DT

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On 9/25/2015 5:28 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 07:10:38PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 16:15 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> With "PRP0001", they can skip the _DSD properties review process (not
>>> that they bother much currently) as long as the existing DT support
>>> covers their needs.
>> So no change there then. I take it the smsc911x bindings didn't go
>> through this mythical _DSD properties review process either, right?
> Right. And that's another reason I disagree with this patchset (I don't
> always agree with everything that's coming out of ARM Ltd ;)).
>
> Now, in Jeremy's defence, this _DSD process looks quite mythical indeed.
> We had an ARM firmware ecosystem meeting earlier this year where we
> agreed to set up such process (at least for the ARM world):
>
> https://wiki.linaro.org/LEG/Engineering/Kernel/ACPI/CoreUpstreamNotes
>
> I can see some form of a process here:
>
> http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/web-page-v2.pdf

That was just an attempt and the final one will most likely be different.

> But, at least to me, it's not clear how you submit properties to such
> registry, what's the review process, who are the reviewers. I know there
> was a mailing list set up but I don't see it listed above.

For the record, this is under discussion right now.

Also for the record, I'm not speaking for Intel.  All of my comments 
here are based on my personal opinions.

>>>   However, we don't want to emulate DT in ACPI but > first try the
>>> established ACPI methods and only use _DSD where these are
>>> insufficient. Automatically converting existing drivers and encouraging
>>> people to use "PRP0001" does not provide them with any incentive to try
>>> harder and learn the "ACPI way".
>> But again, we're *not* looking at a simplistic transliteration of
>> properties.
> I know you and I don't look at it this way but, based on historical
> evidence, I'm sure that some ARM vendors will try to do exactly this
> (and be able to claim "ACPI support" when they were happily using DT).
>
>>>> In some ways, your proposal would be actively *counterproductive*. You
>>>> say you want to train people *not* to keep patching the kernel. But
>>>> where they *could* have just used PRP0001 and used a pre-existing
>>>> kernel, you then tell them "oh, but now you need to patch the kernel
>>>> because we want you to make up a new HID and not be compatible with
>>>> what already exists."
>>> I gave an example above with the clocks but let's take a simpler,
>>> device-specific property like "smsc,irq-active-high". Is this documented
>>> anywhere apart from the kernel driver and the in-kernel DT smsc911x.txt?
>>> No. Are other non-Linux OS vendors going to look in the kernel source
>>> tree to implement support in their drivers? I doubt it and we could end
>>> up with two different paths in firmware for handling the same device.
>>> ACPI probably never was truly OS agnostic but with "PRP0001" we don't
>>> even try.
>> Where is the documentation for the INT_CFG_IRQ_POL_ bit in the INT_CFG
>> register, that it controls? The documentation on the bindings really
>> ought to live near that, in an ideal world.
> If not there, at least in some common place like this:
>
> http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/nic-request-v2.pdf
>
> And they could be specific to a newly allocated HID (like we do with DT
> for a newly allocated "compatible" string).
>
>> But that's still a non-sequitur in the context of this particular
>> discussion. The patch that was posted *already* keeps that very same
>> (optional) smsc,irq-active-high property.
>>
>> Again, it isn't relevant to the question of whether the driver is
>> matched via PRP0001 or a newly-allocated HID.
>>
>> The driver, as the patch was posted, *does* have the same set of
>> properties with the same meanings — because anything else would be
>> insane.
> Having the same set of properties makes sense. But not documenting them
> outside of Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ doesn't look right to me,
> from an OS-agnostic ACPI perspective.

They are documented in the code too through the requirements that the 
existing drivers have.

If I have a piece of hardware and a driver for it, it really shouldn't 
matter whether I use a DT or ACPI in my platform.  The driver should 
just work in both cases.  It doesn't have to work in exactly the same 
way, but it should work.  That's not the case today, sadly.

> Let's take it the other way. A new driver is being submitted to Linux
> (or another OS) with support for ACPI (only). The developers may find it
> easier to use PRP0001 with their own _DSD invention. Do we ask the
> developers to submit DT bindings even if they don't immediately target
> DT (even harder if Linux is not the first target)? Or we skip this
> properties review and documenting process altogether? At least with DT,
> we usually see the bindings and kernel code together and have a chance
> to NAK. For _DSD we need something outside the Linux kernel community.
>
> But I agree with your statement above, it's not relevant whether a new
> _HID is used or PRP0001 + "compatible" when we don't even control which
> _DSD properties are added.
>
> As I said previously, disabling PRP0001 on ARM is more of a weak method
> of keeping track of which drivers are used with ACPI. My concern (and it
> won't go away) is a thoughtless migration of existing DT drivers and ARM
> SoCs to ACPI. PRP0001 makes it easier though it's _DSD actually
> facilitating this.

Even if they tried to do that, infrastructure is missing for things like 
regulators etc (because the frameworks there use of_ helpers directly 
IIRC and I'm not aware of any plans to change that) and on the other 
hand GPIO already depends on _CRS being used in accordance with ACPI 
anyway (even if _DSD properties are used), so I'd say this would be 
practically difficult rather.

IOW, using _DSD properties for individual devices/drivers is easy. Doing 
the same thing for the whole system, not so much.

>>> Apart from a _DSD properties review process, what we need is (main) OS
>>> vendors enforcing it, possibly with stricter ACPI test suite. Disabling
>>> PRP0001 for ARM wouldn't solve the problem but at least it would make
>>> people think about what _DSD properties they need registered for their
>>> device (or I'm over optimistic and I should just stop caring ;)).
>> I'm all for requiring pre-existing DT bindings to be "vetted" by the
>> nascent _DSD review process, before their use with PRP0001 can be
>> 'blessed'.
> If we want something enforced here, we need a better methodology than
> keeping track of which patches are submitted (and this would involve OS
> vendors support since in many cases their kernels are seen as the
> "canonical" implementation).
>
>> But in a world where people *are* going to go off and do their own
>> insane thing, we really might as well let them use the *same* thing
>> that we already had — in as many cases as possible — rather than
>> actually *making* them come up with a new insane thing all of their
>> very own.
> This only works as long as they target an existing driver with prior DT
> support (usually with reviewed bindings).

Exactly.

And this is what we (David and me at least) want to be possible.  It 
would be a failure if people had to write separate drivers for 
ACPI-based and DT-based platforms to handle the same hardware, at least 
at the leaf driver level.

> If they have a new driver and
> only ACPI in mind, I'm pretty sure we'll end up with new insane things.

We will.  With or without _DSD and all.  That had happened way before 
_DSD was introduced.

And by the way, demonizing _DSD doesn't help you at all, because there 
was the *much* *worse* thing called _DSM way before and it allowed of 
the same things as _DSD does and more.  And it still is there and it 
very well may be used to feed an entire DT in binary format to the 
kernel when no one is looking.

So this is all about tradeoffs.  If you don't give people enough rope to 
do something, they'll find another way and you may hate that one, but 
then it'll be too late.

> That's why we need some form of _DSD properties review and "compatible"
> is one such property.
>

Yes, we need and want to set up a process for registering _DSD 
properties.  That turns out a bit more complicated than we thought it 
would be, though.

No, that won't prevent people from doing insane things with properties 
(or similar) they never register and they support in their 
out-of-the-tree drivers they never attempt to mainline.  But let's be 
honest that this can happen with DT just as well.

And it seems to me that we're spending more time on doing politics than 
on solving technical problems which should really be our focus IMO.

And the underlying technical problem to me is what I said before: Device 
drivers should work regardless of what way the configuration information 
is provided to the kernel.  Indeed, they shouldn't even have to care 
about that.

Do you agree with that?

Thanks,
Rafael