Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] dt-bindings: misc: Add mikrobus-connector

From: "Michael Walle" <mwalle@kernel.org>
To: "Vaishnav Achath" <vaishnav.a@ti.com>, "Andrew Lunn" <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	"Ayush Singh" <ayushdevel1325@gmail.com>,
	"open list" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<jkridner@beagleboard.org>, <robertcnelson@beagleboard.org>,
	<lorforlinux@beagleboard.org>, "Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	"Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Nishanth Menon" <nm@ti.com>,
	"Vignesh Raghavendra" <vigneshr@ti.com>,
	"Tero Kristo" <kristo@kernel.org>,
	"Derek Kiernan" <derek.kiernan@amd.com>,
	"Dragan Cvetic" <dragan.cvetic@amd.com>,
	"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>,
	"Johan Hovold" <johan@kernel.org>,
	"Alex Elder" <elder@kernel.org>,
	"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"moderated list:ARM/TEXAS INSTRUMENTS K3 ARCHITECTURE"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"open list:SPI SUBSYSTEM" <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"moderated list:GREYBUS SUBSYSTEM" <greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org>,
	"Vaishnav M A" <vaishnav@beagleboard.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] dt-bindings: misc: Add mikrobus-connector
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 13:44:29 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CZZFRLRP6RKE.299OFG59KCK9L@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ef6a1c28-70dc-4077-b644-2704ac3cf30f@ti.com>

Hi,

> >>> Is that because the current software support is too limited? Are there
> >>> manufactures who want to create more complex designed, but are limited
> >>> by what can be described in the manifest?
> >>>
> >>
> >> most mikroBUS add-on boards in production lies in the category of
> >> sensors, displays, connectivity, mixed signal (ADC/DAC .etc) and if you
> >> look at the existing bindings under bindings/iio/ , most devices need
> >> only simple descriptions and the properties are mainly standard bus
> >> properties (SPI/I2C properties), IRQ, named-gpios, named properties,
> >> regulators, clocks the extension to manifest was made taking this into
> >> account and the named property description interface just maps the
> >> manifest entries to the unified device property interface under
> >> include/linux/property.h
> > 
> > How will the ethernet boards ([1], [2]) work? Where do they get
> > their MAC address from, for example. The DT has some nice properties
> > for that, but I doubt that will be possible with the manifest files.
> > I've looked at the manifest file for the w5500 board [3] and to me
> > it looks like that board will come up with a random MAC address on
> > each start. Thus, even today, you have some boards which require
> > a more complex description.
> > 
>
> Agreed, this is a limitation, unless the corresponding 
> drivers/subsystems use device_property_read_* helper to fetch 
> properties, it will not work and net/core/of_net.c only implements 
> of_get_* helpers even though the underlying functions can be implemented 
> with equivalent device_property_read_* equivalent as well.

And I don't think this is a good idea given that the alternative is
just working.

> > Apart from the discussion whether the manifest is a suitable or
> > sufficient mechanism to describe the hardware, I think the main
> > problem with the proposed binding, is that it doesn't follow the
> > binding Rob was proposing for a socket. If I want to use DT
> > overlays, how would you describe an add-on board?
> > 
> > The proposal was that the base board has something like
> > 
> > mikrobus: socket {
> > 	compatible = "mikrobus-socket";
> > 	i2c-parent = <&i2c0>;
> > 	spi-parent = <&spi0>;
> > 
> > 	i2c {};
> > 	spi {};
> > };
> > 
> > an add-on board can then have a DT snippet/overlay like the
> > following:
> > 
> > &mikrobus {
> > 	i2c {
> > 		eeprom@52: {
> > 			reg = <52>;
> > 			compatible = <atmel,at24..>;
> > 		}
> > 	};
> > 
> > 	spi {
> > 		sensor@0: {
> > 			reg = <0>;
> > 			compatible = <foobar>;
> > 		};
> > 	};
> > };
> > 
> > That should be possible with a binding for the mikrobus, which
> > in fact it is just a pin header with a standard pinout. Also as
> > Russell pointed out in v3, the EEPROM/manifest is not part of the
> > mikrobus standard. So maybe that deserves an own compatible, like
> > 
> >     compatible = "mikroe,click", "mikrobus-socket";
> > 
> > Or maybe click-eeprom? Although click seems to be the brand name of
> > MikroElektronika.
>
> Agreed, there is nothing preventing us to convert the binding and update 
> the driver to follow the above proposed format and will be done in next 
> revision. Click is brand name of MikroElektronika and they don't allow 
> custom boards to use that branding, however clickid can be used in the 
> case where EEPROM is present/enable the socket to be probeable.

Thinking about this again. I'm not sure this additional compatible
really helps the discovery. It's a chicken egg problem. Only the
modules knows if it has an EEPROM, but then, we already have to
know it's in the socket. So while it might help for a static
configuration, it does not for the discovery.

-michael

> > [1] https://www.mikroe.com/eth-3-click
> > [2] https://www.mikroe.com/eth-wiz-click
> > [3] https://github.com/MikroElektronika/click_id/blob/main/manifests/ETH-WIZ-CLICK.mnfs