[RFC PATCH v2 0/7] of: Introduce hardware prober driver

[Chen-Yu Tsai]

On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 5:35 AM Rob Herring <robh+dt at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 2:45 PM Doug Anderson <dianders at chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 2:28 PM Rob Herring <robh+dt at kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So if we're searching the whole device tree for "failed-needs-probe"
> > > > then we need to figure out which devices are related to each other. If
> > > > a given board has second sources for MIPI panels, touchscreens, and
> > > > trackpads then we need to know which of the "failed-needs-probe"
> > > > devices are trackpads, which are touchscreens, and which are MIPI
> > > > panels. Do you have any suggestions for how we should do that? Maybe
> > > > it was in some other thread that I missed? I guess we could have a
> > > > board-specific table mapping (compatible + node name + reg) to a
> > > > class, but that feels awkward.
> > >
> > > Node name is supposed to correspond to device class, so why not use
> > > that (no path or unit-address.) and nothing else (well, besides
> > > "status")?
> >
> > One problem is that I could imagine having two second source trackpads
> > that both have the same i2c address. That would give them the same
> > name, right? I guess you could maybe come up with some sort of suffix
> > rule? Like
> >
> > trackpad-1 at 10 {
> >   compatible = "elan,blah";
> >   ret = <0x10>;
> >   status = "failed-needs-probe";
> >   ...
> > }
> > trackpad-2 at 10 {
> >   compatible = "goodix,gt7375p";
> >   ret = <0x10>;
> >   status = "failed-needs-probe";
> >   ...
> > }
> >
> > Then I guess the class would be "trackpad"?
>
> That issue is somewhat orthogonal because it is not following the spec.
>
> I'm not sure mixing the 2 styles of node names is a good idea. While
> not used too much, matching by node name does ignore the unit-address,
> but I'm not sure we could ignore a '-N'.

of_node_name_prefix() solves that. I assume that's the intended use case?

> I think our options are either add something to the unit-address or
> use i2c-mux binding. Adding to the unit-address is not unprecedented.
> I did that for some of the register bit level bindings where you have
> a node for different bits at the same address. The downside is
> unit-address is bus specific, so we'd have to add that for multiple
> buses. For the i2c-mux, it's perhaps a bit complex and I'm not sure
> what if anything you'd have to do to manage the mux that's not really
> there.
>
> Rob