olpc ofw question
Hi,
I've run a comparison between OLPC's old OFW code (which mounts the device-tree at /ofw, and makes use of the sparc code) versus the code which I'm planning to send upstream (which mounts the device-tree at /proc/device-tree, and makes use of PROC_DEVTREE). The results are here:
http://dev.queued.net/~dilinger/dt.diff
That's from running:
find /proc/device-tree -type f | sort | while read f; do echo $f | sed 's#/proc/device-tree##'; sudo od -c $f; done > ~/dt-proc find /ofw -type f | sort | while read f; do echo $f | sed 's#/ofw##'; sudo od -c $f; done > ~/dt-ofw
diff -u dt-ofw dt-proc > dt.diff
Note that this was run on two different OLPC XO-1 machines, hence the difference in serial numbers, mfg-data, and other such things.
There are two things I'm concerned about; the first is that device names are mangled. For some things (ie, "/battery@0/name" => "/battery/name"), I don't particularly care; for others ("/pci/audio@f,3/device-id" => "/pci/audio/device-id"), it's kind of annoying to lose that extra bit of information. What's the purpose being the mangling that happens w/ /proc/device-tree? I the following comment in proc_devtree.c:
* For a node with a name like "gc@10", we make symlinks called "gc"
* and "@10" to it.
However, I'm not seeing *any* symlinks at all in /proc/device-tree.
My second concern is the renaming of /pci/usb@f,4 (the ohci device) to /pci/usb. I'm not sure if that's due to a bug in the devtree code, OFW, or my patch. Note that the kernel spits out the following messages while populating /proc/device-tree:
[ 0.130869] device-tree: Duplicate name in /pci, renamed to "usb#1" [ 0.131589] device-tree: Duplicate name in /, renamed to "dropin-fs#1"
I'm assuming that the code first renamed the ohci device from /pci/usb@f,4 to /pci/usb, attempted to then rename the wireless chip from /pci/usb@f,5 to /pci/usb, and spit out that error. That seems.. odd.
Any insight into the reasoning for this mangling?
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 20100810204010.134618fb-ztAUm9HJea/[email protected]
Quoted 5 lines
I've run a comparison between OLPC's old OFW code (which mounts the device-tree at /ofw, and makes use of the sparc code) versus the code which I'm planning to send upstream (which mounts the device-tree at
/proc/device-tree, and makes use ofPROC_DEVTREE). The results are here:
[unit addresses are missing]
Quoted 1 line
Any insight into the reasoning for this mangling?
It sounds to me like you're not putting the (textual representation of the) unit address in the device_node->full_name field. How do you fill that field?
Segher
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 55307.84.105.60.153.1281559723.squirrel-JorI+TVEvZrY24RiXHRV3ti2O/[email protected]
Quoted 6 lines · On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:48:43 +0200 (CEST) "Segher Boessenkool"…
Quoted 5 lines
I've run a comparison between OLPC's old OFW code (which mounts the device-tree at /ofw, and makes use of the sparc code) versus the code which I'm planning to send upstream (which mounts the device-tree at
/proc/device-tree, and makes use ofPROC_DEVTREE). The results are here:
Quoted 7 lines
[unit addresses are missing]
Quoted 1 line
Any insight into the reasoning for this mangling?
It sounds to me like you're not putting the (textual representation of the) unit address in the
device_node->full_namefield. How do you fill that field?
Ah, that could very well be it. Note that the *old* OLPC code used the 'path_component_name' of device_node. The new code uses just 'name' in pdt_build_full_name(), as path_component_name is #ifdef'd out for !SPARC. I guess I'm not entirely sure why sparc used path_component_name in the first place..
The code that fills in full_name:
dp->full_name = pdt_build_full_name(dp);
static char * __init pdt_build_full_name(struct device_node *dp)
{
int len, ourlen, plen;
char *n;
plen = strlen(dp->parent->full_name);
ourlen = strlen(fetch_node_name(dp));
len = ourlen + plen + 2;
n = prom_early_alloc(len);
strcpy(n, dp->parent->full_name);
if (!of_is_root_node(dp->parent)) {
strcpy(n + plen, "/");
plen++;
}
strcpy(n + plen, fetch_node_name(dp));
return n;
}#if defined(CONFIG_SPARC)
static inline const char *fetch_node_name(struct device_node *dp)
{
return dp->path_component_name;
}
#else
static inline const char *fetch_node_name(struct device_node *dp)
{
return dp->name;
}#endif
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 20100811172045.77cda7a0-ztAUm9HJea/[email protected]
Quoted 20 lines · Andres Salomon
Quoted 6 lines · On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:48:43 +0200 (CEST) "Segher Boessenkool"…
Quoted 6 lines
I've run a comparison between OLPC's old OFW code (which mounts the device-tree at /ofw, and makes use of the sparc code) versus the code which I'm planning to send upstream (which mounts the device-tree at
/proc/device-tree, and makes use ofPROC_DEVTREE). The results are here:Quoted 9 lines
[unit addresses are missing]
Quoted 2 lines
Any insight into the reasoning for this mangling?
It sounds to me like you're not putting the (textual representation of the) unit address in the
device_node->full_namefield. How do you fill that field?
Quoted 6 lines
Ah, that could very well be it. Note that the *old* OLPC code used the '
path_component_name' ofdevice_node. The new code uses just 'name' inpdt_build_full_name(), aspath_component_nameis #ifdef'd out for !SPARC. I guess I'm not entirely sure why sparc usedpath_component_namein the first place..
I think I understand the situation. The guess that I articulated on IRC is essentially correct. The (human-readable) text representation of the unit address - i.e. the stuff after "@" - is parent-bus-specific. The numerical representation of a unit address is easily determined - it is the first "#address-cells" cells of the "reg" property. But the rendering of that into ASCII is not as obvious.
A live OF environment gets the text representation by calling the parent bus's "decode-unit" method with the numerical representation as an argument. (In the other direction, the "encode-unit" method goes from text to numerical.) There's an easy way to get that effect via the client interface - just call "package-to-path" on the phandle, and OF will return the full pathname in canonical form.
If you look in arch/sparc/kernel/prom.c:sparc32_path_component() you'll see what is going on. That routine derives a "name@address" string using a heuristic described in this comment:
/* The following routines deal with the black magic of fully naming a
* node.
*
* Certain well known named nodes are just the simple name string. *
* Actual devices have an address specifier appended to the base name
* string, like this "foo@addr". The "addr" can be in any number of
* formats, and the platform plus the type of the node determine the
* format and how it is constructed.
*
* For children of the ROOT node, the naming convention is fixed and
* determined by whether this is a sun4u or sun4v system.
*
* For children of other nodes, it is bus type specific. So
* we walk up the tree until we discover a "device_type" property
* we recognize and we go from there.
*/
As I described above, it's not really black magic; extract the numerical form of the unit address and pass it to the parent's encode-unit method . Either someone didn't know about that, or perhaps they had some reason for not using it. It's certainly do-able during the phase while OF is still alive.
In the non-SPARC case, I think the code was dealing with a flattened device tree, where the node name had already been pre-digested to include the @addr suffix. In that case, decoding the unit address into the text representation was somebody else's problem, so there was no (non-SPARC) Linux code to handle it.
The "proc_of.c" code that I wrote in Dec 2006 uses the package-to-path method mentioned above, getting the "name@addr" representation (package-to-path returns the full path, but you can easily extract just the tail component with strrchr(path, '/'))
Quoted 44 lines
The code that fills in
full_name:dp->full_name = pdt_build_full_name(dp);static char *
__initpdt_build_full_name(struct device_node *dp){ int len, ourlen, plen; char *n; plen = strlen(dp->parent->full_name); ourlen = strlen(fetch_node_name(dp)); len = ourlen + plen + 2; n = prom_early_alloc(len); strcpy(n, dp->parent->full_name); if (!of_is_root_node(dp->parent)) { strcpy(n + plen, "/"); plen++; } strcpy(n + plen, fetch_node_name(dp)); return n; }#if
defined(CONFIG_SPARC)
static inline const char *fetch_node_name(structdevice_node*dp){ return dp->path_component_name; } #else static inline const char *fetch_node_name(struct device_node *dp) { return dp->name; }#endif
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:53:44 -1000
Mitch Bradley <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Quoted 5 lines
The "
proc_of.c" code that I wrote in Dec 2006 uses the package-to-path method mentioned above, getting the "name@addr" representation (package-to-path returns the full path, but you can easily extract just the tail component withstrrchr(path, '/'))
Thanks for the tip. I changed the code:
- dp->name = pdt_get_one_property(node, "name"); +// dp->name = pdt_get_one_property(node, "name"); + dp->name = pdt_get_fullname(node);
Where pdt_get_fullname() runs package-to-path and returns strrchr(buf, '/')+1; /proc/device-tree looks much better. Here's the diff now between /ofw and /proc/device-tree:
http://dev.queued.net/~dilinger/dt2.diff
Now I'm wondering a few things;
1) I'm setting node->name to the full node name now (including the "@" suffix). Is there any reason why this might be incorrect (ie, that I should only be using the @ suffix in node->full_name)? It looks fine to me, but it's worth asking...
2) At a later point, it's probably worth looking into changing the sparc code to use this as well. Is there a reason why the sparc code doesn't shouldn't use this (ie, old firmware bugs)?
3) I get the following during proc population:
[ 0.126687] device-tree: Duplicate name in /, renamed to "dropin-fs#1"
Looking at the diff, I see
-/dropin-fs/.node
-0000000 ` 222 206 377
-0000004
-/dropin-fs/.node
-0000000 ` 222 206 377
Is this a bug in my version of OFW?
Quoted 26 lines · Andres Salomon
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:53:44 -1000
Mitch Bradley <[email protected]> wrote:[...]
Quoted 5 lines
The "
proc_of.c" code that I wrote in Dec 2006 uses the package-to-path method mentioned above, getting the "name@addr" representation (package-to-path returns the full path, but you can easily extract just the tail component withstrrchr(path, '/'))Thanks for the tip. I changed the code:
(quoted diff) +2
-1- dp->name = pdt_get_one_property(node, "name"); +// dp->name = pdt_get_one_property(node, "name"); + dp->name = pdt_get_fullname(node);Where
pdt_get_fullname()runs package-to-path and returnsstrrchr(buf, '/')+1;/proc/device-treelooks much better. Here's the diff now between /ofw and/proc/device-tree:http://dev.queued.net/~dilinger/dt2.diff
Now I'm wondering a few things;
Quoted 9 lines
1) I'm setting
node->nameto the full node name now (including the "@" suffix). Is there any reason why this might be incorrect (ie, that I should only be using the @ suffix innode->full_name)? It looks fine to me, but it's worth asking...2) At a later point, it's probably worth looking into changing the sparc code to use this as well. Is there a reason why the sparc code doesn't shouldn't use this (ie, old firmware bugs)?
package-to-path first appeared in OBP 3, i.e. the major version that conformed to the IEEE 1275 standard. OBP 1.x and OBP 2.x had a different (less portable and somewhat less functional) client interface ABI called "romvec". If I remember correctly, OBP 3 first appeared on Sun 5 - UltraSPARC - systems. OBP 1 and 2 were on Sun 4c and related machines.
I think it has been about 15 years since the last OBP 2.x system was released. There may still be a few working machines from that generation, but if so, they are of more historic interest than economic value. I ditched my last one something like 10 years ago.
Quoted 12 lines
3) I get the following during proc population:
[ 0.126687] device-tree: Duplicate name in /, renamed to "dropin-fs#1"Looking at the diff, I see
(quoted diff) +0
-5-/dropin-fs/.node -0000000 ` 222 206 377 -0000004 -/dropin-fs/.node -0000000 ` 222 206 377
Quoted 2 lines
Is this a bug in my version of OFW?
Yes. I just fixed it. Thanks for noticing it. Fortunately, it is innocuous.