mirror of
https://github.com/AuxXxilium/linux_dsm_epyc7002.git
synced 2024-12-16 02:46:49 +07:00
076fb0c4b6
The Devicetree Specification has superseded the ePAPR as the base specification for bindings. Update files in Documentation to reference the new document. First reference to ePAPR in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cci.txt is generic, remove it. Some files are not updated because there is no hypervisor chapter in the Devicetree Specification: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/msi-pic.txt Documenation/virtual/kvm/api.txt Documenation/virtual/kvm/ppc-pv.txt Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
416 lines
19 KiB
Plaintext
416 lines
19 KiB
Plaintext
Linux and the Device Tree
|
|
-------------------------
|
|
The Linux usage model for device tree data
|
|
|
|
Author: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
|
|
|
|
This article describes how Linux uses the device tree. An overview of
|
|
the device tree data format can be found on the device tree usage page
|
|
at devicetree.org[1].
|
|
|
|
[1] http://devicetree.org/Device_Tree_Usage
|
|
|
|
The "Open Firmware Device Tree", or simply Device Tree (DT), is a data
|
|
structure and language for describing hardware. More specifically, it
|
|
is a description of hardware that is readable by an operating system
|
|
so that the operating system doesn't need to hard code details of the
|
|
machine.
|
|
|
|
Structurally, the DT is a tree, or acyclic graph with named nodes, and
|
|
nodes may have an arbitrary number of named properties encapsulating
|
|
arbitrary data. A mechanism also exists to create arbitrary
|
|
links from one node to another outside of the natural tree structure.
|
|
|
|
Conceptually, a common set of usage conventions, called 'bindings',
|
|
is defined for how data should appear in the tree to describe typical
|
|
hardware characteristics including data busses, interrupt lines, GPIO
|
|
connections, and peripheral devices.
|
|
|
|
As much as possible, hardware is described using existing bindings to
|
|
maximize use of existing support code, but since property and node
|
|
names are simply text strings, it is easy to extend existing bindings
|
|
or create new ones by defining new nodes and properties. Be wary,
|
|
however, of creating a new binding without first doing some homework
|
|
about what already exists. There are currently two different,
|
|
incompatible, bindings for i2c busses that came about because the new
|
|
binding was created without first investigating how i2c devices were
|
|
already being enumerated in existing systems.
|
|
|
|
1. History
|
|
----------
|
|
The DT was originally created by Open Firmware as part of the
|
|
communication method for passing data from Open Firmware to a client
|
|
program (like to an operating system). An operating system used the
|
|
Device Tree to discover the topology of the hardware at runtime, and
|
|
thereby support a majority of available hardware without hard coded
|
|
information (assuming drivers were available for all devices).
|
|
|
|
Since Open Firmware is commonly used on PowerPC and SPARC platforms,
|
|
the Linux support for those architectures has for a long time used the
|
|
Device Tree.
|
|
|
|
In 2005, when PowerPC Linux began a major cleanup and to merge 32-bit
|
|
and 64-bit support, the decision was made to require DT support on all
|
|
powerpc platforms, regardless of whether or not they used Open
|
|
Firmware. To do this, a DT representation called the Flattened Device
|
|
Tree (FDT) was created which could be passed to the kernel as a binary
|
|
blob without requiring a real Open Firmware implementation. U-Boot,
|
|
kexec, and other bootloaders were modified to support both passing a
|
|
Device Tree Binary (dtb) and to modify a dtb at boot time. DT was
|
|
also added to the PowerPC boot wrapper (arch/powerpc/boot/*) so that
|
|
a dtb could be wrapped up with the kernel image to support booting
|
|
existing non-DT aware firmware.
|
|
|
|
Some time later, FDT infrastructure was generalized to be usable by
|
|
all architectures. At the time of this writing, 6 mainlined
|
|
architectures (arm, microblaze, mips, powerpc, sparc, and x86) and 1
|
|
out of mainline (nios) have some level of DT support.
|
|
|
|
2. Data Model
|
|
-------------
|
|
If you haven't already read the Device Tree Usage[1] page,
|
|
then go read it now. It's okay, I'll wait....
|
|
|
|
2.1 High Level View
|
|
-------------------
|
|
The most important thing to understand is that the DT is simply a data
|
|
structure that describes the hardware. There is nothing magical about
|
|
it, and it doesn't magically make all hardware configuration problems
|
|
go away. What it does do is provide a language for decoupling the
|
|
hardware configuration from the board and device driver support in the
|
|
Linux kernel (or any other operating system for that matter). Using
|
|
it allows board and device support to become data driven; to make
|
|
setup decisions based on data passed into the kernel instead of on
|
|
per-machine hard coded selections.
|
|
|
|
Ideally, data driven platform setup should result in less code
|
|
duplication and make it easier to support a wide range of hardware
|
|
with a single kernel image.
|
|
|
|
Linux uses DT data for three major purposes:
|
|
1) platform identification,
|
|
2) runtime configuration, and
|
|
3) device population.
|
|
|
|
2.2 Platform Identification
|
|
---------------------------
|
|
First and foremost, the kernel will use data in the DT to identify the
|
|
specific machine. In a perfect world, the specific platform shouldn't
|
|
matter to the kernel because all platform details would be described
|
|
perfectly by the device tree in a consistent and reliable manner.
|
|
Hardware is not perfect though, and so the kernel must identify the
|
|
machine during early boot so that it has the opportunity to run
|
|
machine-specific fixups.
|
|
|
|
In the majority of cases, the machine identity is irrelevant, and the
|
|
kernel will instead select setup code based on the machine's core
|
|
CPU or SoC. On ARM for example, setup_arch() in
|
|
arch/arm/kernel/setup.c will call setup_machine_fdt() in
|
|
arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c which searches through the machine_desc
|
|
table and selects the machine_desc which best matches the device tree
|
|
data. It determines the best match by looking at the 'compatible'
|
|
property in the root device tree node, and comparing it with the
|
|
dt_compat list in struct machine_desc (which is defined in
|
|
arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h if you're curious).
|
|
|
|
The 'compatible' property contains a sorted list of strings starting
|
|
with the exact name of the machine, followed by an optional list of
|
|
boards it is compatible with sorted from most compatible to least. For
|
|
example, the root compatible properties for the TI BeagleBoard and its
|
|
successor, the BeagleBoard xM board might look like, respectively:
|
|
|
|
compatible = "ti,omap3-beagleboard", "ti,omap3450", "ti,omap3";
|
|
compatible = "ti,omap3-beagleboard-xm", "ti,omap3450", "ti,omap3";
|
|
|
|
Where "ti,omap3-beagleboard-xm" specifies the exact model, it also
|
|
claims that it compatible with the OMAP 3450 SoC, and the omap3 family
|
|
of SoCs in general. You'll notice that the list is sorted from most
|
|
specific (exact board) to least specific (SoC family).
|
|
|
|
Astute readers might point out that the Beagle xM could also claim
|
|
compatibility with the original Beagle board. However, one should be
|
|
cautioned about doing so at the board level since there is typically a
|
|
high level of change from one board to another, even within the same
|
|
product line, and it is hard to nail down exactly what is meant when one
|
|
board claims to be compatible with another. For the top level, it is
|
|
better to err on the side of caution and not claim one board is
|
|
compatible with another. The notable exception would be when one
|
|
board is a carrier for another, such as a CPU module attached to a
|
|
carrier board.
|
|
|
|
One more note on compatible values. Any string used in a compatible
|
|
property must be documented as to what it indicates. Add
|
|
documentation for compatible strings in Documentation/devicetree/bindings.
|
|
|
|
Again on ARM, for each machine_desc, the kernel looks to see if
|
|
any of the dt_compat list entries appear in the compatible property.
|
|
If one does, then that machine_desc is a candidate for driving the
|
|
machine. After searching the entire table of machine_descs,
|
|
setup_machine_fdt() returns the 'most compatible' machine_desc based
|
|
on which entry in the compatible property each machine_desc matches
|
|
against. If no matching machine_desc is found, then it returns NULL.
|
|
|
|
The reasoning behind this scheme is the observation that in the majority
|
|
of cases, a single machine_desc can support a large number of boards
|
|
if they all use the same SoC, or same family of SoCs. However,
|
|
invariably there will be some exceptions where a specific board will
|
|
require special setup code that is not useful in the generic case.
|
|
Special cases could be handled by explicitly checking for the
|
|
troublesome board(s) in generic setup code, but doing so very quickly
|
|
becomes ugly and/or unmaintainable if it is more than just a couple of
|
|
cases.
|
|
|
|
Instead, the compatible list allows a generic machine_desc to provide
|
|
support for a wide common set of boards by specifying "less
|
|
compatible" values in the dt_compat list. In the example above,
|
|
generic board support can claim compatibility with "ti,omap3" or
|
|
"ti,omap3450". If a bug was discovered on the original beagleboard
|
|
that required special workaround code during early boot, then a new
|
|
machine_desc could be added which implements the workarounds and only
|
|
matches on "ti,omap3-beagleboard".
|
|
|
|
PowerPC uses a slightly different scheme where it calls the .probe()
|
|
hook from each machine_desc, and the first one returning TRUE is used.
|
|
However, this approach does not take into account the priority of the
|
|
compatible list, and probably should be avoided for new architecture
|
|
support.
|
|
|
|
2.3 Runtime configuration
|
|
-------------------------
|
|
In most cases, a DT will be the sole method of communicating data from
|
|
firmware to the kernel, so also gets used to pass in runtime and
|
|
configuration data like the kernel parameters string and the location
|
|
of an initrd image.
|
|
|
|
Most of this data is contained in the /chosen node, and when booting
|
|
Linux it will look something like this:
|
|
|
|
chosen {
|
|
bootargs = "console=ttyS0,115200 loglevel=8";
|
|
initrd-start = <0xc8000000>;
|
|
initrd-end = <0xc8200000>;
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
The bootargs property contains the kernel arguments, and the initrd-*
|
|
properties define the address and size of an initrd blob. Note that
|
|
initrd-end is the first address after the initrd image, so this doesn't
|
|
match the usual semantic of struct resource. The chosen node may also
|
|
optionally contain an arbitrary number of additional properties for
|
|
platform-specific configuration data.
|
|
|
|
During early boot, the architecture setup code calls of_scan_flat_dt()
|
|
several times with different helper callbacks to parse device tree
|
|
data before paging is setup. The of_scan_flat_dt() code scans through
|
|
the device tree and uses the helpers to extract information required
|
|
during early boot. Typically the early_init_dt_scan_chosen() helper
|
|
is used to parse the chosen node including kernel parameters,
|
|
early_init_dt_scan_root() to initialize the DT address space model,
|
|
and early_init_dt_scan_memory() to determine the size and
|
|
location of usable RAM.
|
|
|
|
On ARM, the function setup_machine_fdt() is responsible for early
|
|
scanning of the device tree after selecting the correct machine_desc
|
|
that supports the board.
|
|
|
|
2.4 Device population
|
|
---------------------
|
|
After the board has been identified, and after the early configuration data
|
|
has been parsed, then kernel initialization can proceed in the normal
|
|
way. At some point in this process, unflatten_device_tree() is called
|
|
to convert the data into a more efficient runtime representation.
|
|
This is also when machine-specific setup hooks will get called, like
|
|
the machine_desc .init_early(), .init_irq() and .init_machine() hooks
|
|
on ARM. The remainder of this section uses examples from the ARM
|
|
implementation, but all architectures will do pretty much the same
|
|
thing when using a DT.
|
|
|
|
As can be guessed by the names, .init_early() is used for any machine-
|
|
specific setup that needs to be executed early in the boot process,
|
|
and .init_irq() is used to set up interrupt handling. Using a DT
|
|
doesn't materially change the behaviour of either of these functions.
|
|
If a DT is provided, then both .init_early() and .init_irq() are able
|
|
to call any of the DT query functions (of_* in include/linux/of*.h) to
|
|
get additional data about the platform.
|
|
|
|
The most interesting hook in the DT context is .init_machine() which
|
|
is primarily responsible for populating the Linux device model with
|
|
data about the platform. Historically this has been implemented on
|
|
embedded platforms by defining a set of static clock structures,
|
|
platform_devices, and other data in the board support .c file, and
|
|
registering it en-masse in .init_machine(). When DT is used, then
|
|
instead of hard coding static devices for each platform, the list of
|
|
devices can be obtained by parsing the DT, and allocating device
|
|
structures dynamically.
|
|
|
|
The simplest case is when .init_machine() is only responsible for
|
|
registering a block of platform_devices. A platform_device is a concept
|
|
used by Linux for memory or I/O mapped devices which cannot be detected
|
|
by hardware, and for 'composite' or 'virtual' devices (more on those
|
|
later). While there is no 'platform device' terminology for the DT,
|
|
platform devices roughly correspond to device nodes at the root of the
|
|
tree and children of simple memory mapped bus nodes.
|
|
|
|
About now is a good time to lay out an example. Here is part of the
|
|
device tree for the NVIDIA Tegra board.
|
|
|
|
/{
|
|
compatible = "nvidia,harmony", "nvidia,tegra20";
|
|
#address-cells = <1>;
|
|
#size-cells = <1>;
|
|
interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
|
|
|
|
chosen { };
|
|
aliases { };
|
|
|
|
memory {
|
|
device_type = "memory";
|
|
reg = <0x00000000 0x40000000>;
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
soc {
|
|
compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-soc", "simple-bus";
|
|
#address-cells = <1>;
|
|
#size-cells = <1>;
|
|
ranges;
|
|
|
|
intc: interrupt-controller@50041000 {
|
|
compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-gic";
|
|
interrupt-controller;
|
|
#interrupt-cells = <1>;
|
|
reg = <0x50041000 0x1000>, < 0x50040100 0x0100 >;
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
serial@70006300 {
|
|
compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-uart";
|
|
reg = <0x70006300 0x100>;
|
|
interrupts = <122>;
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
i2s1: i2s@70002800 {
|
|
compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-i2s";
|
|
reg = <0x70002800 0x100>;
|
|
interrupts = <77>;
|
|
codec = <&wm8903>;
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
i2c@7000c000 {
|
|
compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-i2c";
|
|
#address-cells = <1>;
|
|
#size-cells = <0>;
|
|
reg = <0x7000c000 0x100>;
|
|
interrupts = <70>;
|
|
|
|
wm8903: codec@1a {
|
|
compatible = "wlf,wm8903";
|
|
reg = <0x1a>;
|
|
interrupts = <347>;
|
|
};
|
|
};
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
sound {
|
|
compatible = "nvidia,harmony-sound";
|
|
i2s-controller = <&i2s1>;
|
|
i2s-codec = <&wm8903>;
|
|
};
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
At .init_machine() time, Tegra board support code will need to look at
|
|
this DT and decide which nodes to create platform_devices for.
|
|
However, looking at the tree, it is not immediately obvious what kind
|
|
of device each node represents, or even if a node represents a device
|
|
at all. The /chosen, /aliases, and /memory nodes are informational
|
|
nodes that don't describe devices (although arguably memory could be
|
|
considered a device). The children of the /soc node are memory mapped
|
|
devices, but the codec@1a is an i2c device, and the sound node
|
|
represents not a device, but rather how other devices are connected
|
|
together to create the audio subsystem. I know what each device is
|
|
because I'm familiar with the board design, but how does the kernel
|
|
know what to do with each node?
|
|
|
|
The trick is that the kernel starts at the root of the tree and looks
|
|
for nodes that have a 'compatible' property. First, it is generally
|
|
assumed that any node with a 'compatible' property represents a device
|
|
of some kind, and second, it can be assumed that any node at the root
|
|
of the tree is either directly attached to the processor bus, or is a
|
|
miscellaneous system device that cannot be described any other way.
|
|
For each of these nodes, Linux allocates and registers a
|
|
platform_device, which in turn may get bound to a platform_driver.
|
|
|
|
Why is using a platform_device for these nodes a safe assumption?
|
|
Well, for the way that Linux models devices, just about all bus_types
|
|
assume that its devices are children of a bus controller. For
|
|
example, each i2c_client is a child of an i2c_master. Each spi_device
|
|
is a child of an SPI bus. Similarly for USB, PCI, MDIO, etc. The
|
|
same hierarchy is also found in the DT, where I2C device nodes only
|
|
ever appear as children of an I2C bus node. Ditto for SPI, MDIO, USB,
|
|
etc. The only devices which do not require a specific type of parent
|
|
device are platform_devices (and amba_devices, but more on that
|
|
later), which will happily live at the base of the Linux /sys/devices
|
|
tree. Therefore, if a DT node is at the root of the tree, then it
|
|
really probably is best registered as a platform_device.
|
|
|
|
Linux board support code calls of_platform_populate(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL)
|
|
to kick off discovery of devices at the root of the tree. The
|
|
parameters are all NULL because when starting from the root of the
|
|
tree, there is no need to provide a starting node (the first NULL), a
|
|
parent struct device (the last NULL), and we're not using a match
|
|
table (yet). For a board that only needs to register devices,
|
|
.init_machine() can be completely empty except for the
|
|
of_platform_populate() call.
|
|
|
|
In the Tegra example, this accounts for the /soc and /sound nodes, but
|
|
what about the children of the SoC node? Shouldn't they be registered
|
|
as platform devices too? For Linux DT support, the generic behaviour
|
|
is for child devices to be registered by the parent's device driver at
|
|
driver .probe() time. So, an i2c bus device driver will register a
|
|
i2c_client for each child node, an SPI bus driver will register
|
|
its spi_device children, and similarly for other bus_types.
|
|
According to that model, a driver could be written that binds to the
|
|
SoC node and simply registers platform_devices for each of its
|
|
children. The board support code would allocate and register an SoC
|
|
device, a (theoretical) SoC device driver could bind to the SoC device,
|
|
and register platform_devices for /soc/interrupt-controller, /soc/serial,
|
|
/soc/i2s, and /soc/i2c in its .probe() hook. Easy, right?
|
|
|
|
Actually, it turns out that registering children of some
|
|
platform_devices as more platform_devices is a common pattern, and the
|
|
device tree support code reflects that and makes the above example
|
|
simpler. The second argument to of_platform_populate() is an
|
|
of_device_id table, and any node that matches an entry in that table
|
|
will also get its child nodes registered. In the Tegra case, the code
|
|
can look something like this:
|
|
|
|
static void __init harmony_init_machine(void)
|
|
{
|
|
/* ... */
|
|
of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
"simple-bus" is defined in the Devicetree Specification as a property
|
|
meaning a simple memory mapped bus, so the of_platform_populate() code
|
|
could be written to just assume simple-bus compatible nodes will
|
|
always be traversed. However, we pass it in as an argument so that
|
|
board support code can always override the default behaviour.
|
|
|
|
[Need to add discussion of adding i2c/spi/etc child devices]
|
|
|
|
Appendix A: AMBA devices
|
|
------------------------
|
|
|
|
ARM Primecells are a certain kind of device attached to the ARM AMBA
|
|
bus which include some support for hardware detection and power
|
|
management. In Linux, struct amba_device and the amba_bus_type is
|
|
used to represent Primecell devices. However, the fiddly bit is that
|
|
not all devices on an AMBA bus are Primecells, and for Linux it is
|
|
typical for both amba_device and platform_device instances to be
|
|
siblings of the same bus segment.
|
|
|
|
When using the DT, this creates problems for of_platform_populate()
|
|
because it must decide whether to register each node as either a
|
|
platform_device or an amba_device. This unfortunately complicates the
|
|
device creation model a little bit, but the solution turns out not to
|
|
be too invasive. If a node is compatible with "arm,amba-primecell", then
|
|
of_platform_populate() will register it as an amba_device instead of a
|
|
platform_device.
|