All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] RFC: tiny-dm: Proposal for using driver model in SPL
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:06:42 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPnjgZ1HZ4svfc7Vd8wicgaFVejZiZTCYvaRyRxm3Y21mOb0YA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <db3fa94b-dd1e-748b-3512-385d45cb321f@collabora.com>

Hi Walter,

On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 at 20:45, Walter Lozano <walter.lozano@collabora.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
>
> On 10/7/20 01:12, Walter Lozano wrote:
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > On 2/7/20 18:10, Simon Glass wrote:
> >> This series provides a proposed enhancement to driver model to reduce
> >> overhead in SPL.
> >>
> >> These patches should not be reviewed other than to comment on the
> >> approach. The code is all lumped together in a few patches and so cannot
> >> be applied as is.
> >>
> >> For now, the source tree is available at:
> >>
> >> https://gitlab.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-dm/-/tree/dtoc-working
> >>
> >> Comments welcome!
> >>
> >> Benefits (good news)
> >> --------------------
> >>
> >> As an example of the impact of tiny-dm, chromebook_jerry is converted to
> >> use it. This shows approximately a 30% reduction in code and data
> >> size and
> >> a 85% reduction in malloc() space over of-platdata:
> >>
> >>     text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
> >>    25248       1836         12      27096       69d8 spl/u-boot-spl
> >> (original with DT)
> >>    19727       3436         12      23175       5a87 spl/u-boot-spl
> >> (OF_PLATDATA)
> >>      78%    187%    100%     86%         as %age of original
> >>
> >>    13784       1408         12      15204       3b64 spl/u-boot-spl
> >> (SPL_TINY)
> >>      70%     41%    100%     66%         as %age of platdata
> >>      55%     77%    100%     56%         as %age of original
> >>
> >> SPL malloc() usage drops from 944 bytes (OF_PLATDATA) to 116 (SPL_TINY).
> >>
> >> Overall the 'overhead' of tiny-dm is much less than the full driver
> >> model. Code size is currently about 600 bytes for these functions on
> >> Thumb2:
> >>
> >>     00000054 T tiny_dev_probe
> >>     00000034 T tiny_dev_get_by_drvdata
> >>     00000024 T tiny_dev_find
> >>     0000001a T tiny_dev_get
> >>     0000003c T tinydev_alloc_data
> >>     0000002a t tinydev_lookup_data
> >>     00000022 T tinydev_ensure_data
> >>     00000014 T tinydev_get_data
> >>     00000004 T tinydev_get_parent
> >>
> >> Effort (bad news)
> >> -----------------
> >>
> >> Unfortunately it is quite a bit of work to convert drivers over to
> >> tiny-dm. First, the of-platdata conversion must be done. But on top of
> >> that, tiny-dm needs entirely separate code for dealing with devices.
> >> This
> >> means that instead of 'struct udevice' and 'struct uclass' there is just
> >> 'struct tinydev'. Each driver and uclass must be modified to support
> >> both, pulling common code into internal static functions.
> >>
> >> Another option
> >> --------------
> >>
> >> Note: It is assumed that any board that is space-contrained should use
> >> of-platdata in SPL (see doc/driver-model/of-plat.rst). This is shown to
> >> reduce device-tree overhead by approximately 4KB.
> >>
> >> Designing tiny-dm has suggested a number of things that could be changed
> >> in the current driver model to make it more space-efficient for TPL and
> >> SPL. The ones with least impact on driver code are (CS=reduces code
> >> size,
> >> DS=reduces data size):
> >>
> >>     CS - drop driver_bind() and create devices (struct udevice) at
> >>          build-time
> >>     CS - allocate all device- and uclass-private data at build-time
> >>     CS - remove all but the basic operations for each uclass (e.g. SPI
> >>          flash only supports reading)
> >>     DS - use 8-bit indexes instead of 32/64-bit pointers for device
> >>          pointers possible since these are created at build-time)
> >>     DS - use singly-linked lists
> >>     DS - use 16-bit offsets to private data, instead of 32/64-bit
> >> pointers
> >>          (possible since it is all in SRAM relative to malloc() base,
> >>          presumably word-aligned and < 256KB)
> >>     DS - move private pointers into a separate data structure so that
> >> NULLs
> >>          are not stored
> >>     CS / DS - Combine req_seq and seq and calculate the new value at
> >>          build-time
> >>
> >> More difficult are:
> >>
> >>     DS - drop some of the lesser-used driver and uclass methods
> >>     DS - drop all uclass methods except init()
> >>     DS - drop all driver methods except probe()
> >>     CS / DS - drop uclasses and require drivers to manually call uclass
> >>          functions
> >>
> >> Even with all of this we would not reach tiny-dm and it would muddy
> >> up the
> >> driver-model datas structures. But we might come close to tiny-dm on
> >> size
> >> and there are some advantages:
> >>
> >> - much of the benefit would apply to all boards that use of-platdata
> >> (i.e.
> >>    with very little effort on behalf of board maintainers)
> >> - the impact on the code base is much less (we keep a single, unified
> >>    driver mode in SPL and U-Boot proper)
> >>
> >> Overall I think it is worth looking at this option. While it doesn't
> >> have
> >> the 'nuclear' impact of tiny-dm, neither does it mess with the U-Boot
> >> driver code as much and it is easier to learn.
> >
> > Thanks for your hard work on this topic.
> >
> > I think that there is great value in this research and in this
> > conclusion. It is clear that there two different approaches, but I
> > feel that the improvement to  the current DM implementation would have
> > a higher impact in the community.
> >
> > Since the first version of this proposal I have been thinking in a
> > solution that takes some of the advantages of tiny-dm idea but that
> > does not require so much effort. This seems to be aligned with what
> > you have been explaining in this section.
> >
> > I found interesting your proposal about simplification some data
> > structures. In this sense one of my ideas, a bit biased by some of the
> > improvements in dtoc, is to change the the definition of struct driver
> > based on if OF_PLATDATA is enabled, and in this case remove some
> > properties.
> >
> > struct driver {
> > #if !CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_PLATDATA)
> >         char *name;
> > #endif
> >         enum uclass_id id;
> > #if !CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_PLATDATA)
> >         const struct udevice_id *of_match;
> > #endif
> >         int (*bind)(struct udevice *dev);
> >         int (*probe)(struct udevice *dev);
> >         int (*remove)(struct udevice *dev);
> >         int (*unbind)(struct udevice *dev);
> >         int (*ofdata_to_platdata)(struct udevice *dev);
> >         int (*child_post_bind)(struct udevice *dev);
> >         int (*child_pre_probe)(struct udevice *dev);
> >         int (*child_post_remove)(struct udevice *dev);
> >         int priv_auto_alloc_size;
> >         int platdata_auto_alloc_size;
> >         int per_child_auto_alloc_size;
> >         int per_child_platdata_auto_alloc_size;
> >         const void *ops;        /* driver-specific operations */
> >         uint32_t flags;
> > #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(ACPIGEN)
> >         struct acpi_ops *acpi_ops;
> > #endif
> > };
> >
> > By just removing those properties, we save some bytes as we get rid of
> > several strings. Also maybe it would be nice to add some macros to
> > make it cleaner in drivers to use or not those properties, instead of
> > adding lots of #if.
> >
> > I feel, as you clearly expressed, that some additional refactotring
> > can be made to make the logic be more similar to the tiny-dm one. I
> > also found interesting that several of your proposals will have impact
> > in U-Boot, not only in TPL/SPL.
>
>
> Just to be a bit more clear, I was thinking in something like
>
>
> diff --git a/include/dm/device.h b/include/dm/device.h
> index f5738a0cee..0ee239be8f 100644
> --- a/include/dm/device.h
> +++ b/include/dm/device.h
> @@ -203,6 +203,16 @@ struct udevice_id {
>   #define of_match_ptr(_ptr)     NULL
>   #endif /* CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_CONTROL) */
>
> +#if !CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_PLATDATA)
> +#undef OF_PLATDATA_TINY
> +#define STRUCT_FIELD(x) x;
> +#define STRUCT_VALUE(x) x,
> +#else
> +#define OF_PLATDATA_TINY
> +#define STRUCT_FIELD(x)
> +#define STRUCT_VALUE(x)
> +#endif
> +
>   /**
>    * struct driver - A driver for a feature or peripheral
>    *
> @@ -252,9 +262,9 @@ struct udevice_id {
>    * allowing the device to add things to the ACPI tables passed to Linux
>    */
>   struct driver {
> -       char *name;
> +       STRUCT_FIELD(char *name)
>          enum uclass_id id;
> -       const struct udevice_id *of_match;
> +       STRUCT_FIELD(const struct udevice_id *of_match)

I didn't actually reply to this, but I think this makes sense. Perhaps
have a DM_ prefix on your #defines?
(

>          int (*bind)(struct udevice *dev);
>          int (*probe)(struct udevice *dev);
>          int (*remove)(struct udevice *dev);
> diff --git a/drivers/core/simple-bus.c b/drivers/core/simple-bus.c
> index 7cc1d46009..e303d59daf 100644
> --- a/drivers/core/simple-bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/core/simple-bus.c
> @@ -57,8 +57,8 @@ static const struct udevice_id generic_simple_bus_ids[] = {
>   };
>
>   U_BOOT_DRIVER(simple_bus) = {
> -       .name   = "simple_bus",
> +       STRUCT_VALUE(.name      = "simple_bus")
>          .id     = UCLASS_SIMPLE_BUS,
> -       .of_match = generic_simple_bus_ids,
> +       STRUCT_VALUE(.of_match = generic_simple_bus_ids)
>          .flags  = DM_FLAG_PRE_RELOC,
>   };
>
>
> Please don't pay attention to how OF_PLATDATA_TINY is implemented, it is
> just part of the test. I think it should be a configuration option that
> removes some functionality from OF_PLATDATA, like having the overhead of
> the strings. On top of this you could add additional improvements, like
> the binding implementation in tiny-dm which uses DM_REF_TINY_DRIVER.
>

Yes OK. I am thinking of starting with just adding a parent. But time
is not my friend at present so it will probably be a month or so.

Regards,
SImon

  reply	other threads:[~2020-08-16  3:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-02 21:10 [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] RFC: tiny-dm: Proposal for using driver model in SPL Simon Glass
2020-07-02 21:10 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] dm: Driver and uclass changes for tiny-dm Simon Glass
2020-07-02 21:10 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] dm: Arch-specific " Simon Glass
2020-07-02 21:10 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] dm: Core " Simon Glass
2020-07-03  2:19 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] RFC: tiny-dm: Proposal for using driver model in SPL Heinrich Schuchardt
2020-07-03  3:03   ` Simon Glass
2020-07-10  1:12     ` Simon Glass
2020-07-10  4:12 ` Walter Lozano
2020-07-27  2:44   ` Walter Lozano
2020-08-16  3:06     ` Simon Glass [this message]
2020-08-16  3:17       ` Walter Lozano

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAPnjgZ1HZ4svfc7Vd8wicgaFVejZiZTCYvaRyRxm3Y21mOb0YA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=sjg@chromium.org \
    --cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.