Re: Sense of soc bus? (was: [PATCH] base: soc: Export soc_device_to_device() helper)

["Andreas Färber" <afaerber@suse.de>]

Am 14.11.19 um 23:09 schrieb Rob Herring:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:47 AM Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>> Finally, arch/arm seems unique in that it has the machine_desc mechanism
>> that allows individual SoCs to force creating their soc_device early and
>> using it as parent for further DT-created platform_devices. With arm64
>> we've lost that ability, and nios2 is not using it either.
>> A bad side effect (with SUSE hat on) is that this parent design pattern
>> does not allow to build such drivers as modules, which means that distro
>> configs using arm's multi-platform, e.g., CONFIG_ARCH_MULTI_V7 will get
>> unnecessary code creep as new platforms get added over time (beyond the
>> basic clk, pinctrl, tty and maybe timer).
>> Even if it were possible to call into a driver module that early, using
>> it as parent would seem to imply that all the references by its children
>> would not allow to unload the module, which I'd consider a flawed design
>> for such an "optional" read-once driver. If we want the device hierarchy
>> to have a soc root then most DT based platforms will have a /soc DT node
>> anyway (although no device_type = "soc") that we probably could have a
>> device registered for in common code rather than each SoC platform
>> handling that differently? That might then make soc_register_device()
>> not the creator of the device (if pre-existent) but the supplier of data
>> to that core device, which should then allow to unload the data provider
>> with just the sysfs data disappearing until re-inserted (speeding up the
>> develop-and-test cycle on say not-so-resource-constrained platforms).
> 
> I for one would like to for this to be consistent. Either we always
> have an SoC device parent or never. I wouldn't decide based on having
> a DT node or not either.

Sure, if we can always be consistent, that might be best.

Where I was coming from here is that, if we're not supposed to use
soc_device_to_device(), then we have no way to associate an of_node with
the soc_device from the outside (and nobody was doing it today, as per
my analysis). We'd either need a new helper of_soc_device_register()
with additional argument for the node, or it would need to be done
entirely in the infrastructure as I suggested, be it by looking for one
hardcoded /soc node or for nodes with device_type = "soc".

Rob, in light of this discussion, should we start adding the latter
property for new DTs such as my new Realtek SoCs, or was there a reason
this has not been used consistently outside of powerpc and nios2?
Intel/Altera appear to be the only two in arm64, with only three more in
arm, none in mips.

(BTW my assumption was that we don't follow the booting-without-of.txt
documented schema of soc<SOCname> so that we can share .dtsi across
differently named SoCs, is that correct?)

> Generally, we should always have MMIO devices
> under a bus node and perhaps more than one, but that doesn't always
> happen. I think building the drivers as modules is a good reason to do
> away with the parent device.
> 
> It would also allow getting rid of remaining
> of_platform_default_populate calls in arm platforms except for auxdata
> cases. Pretty much that's the ones you list below in arch/arm/.

The majority was indeed passing in NULL, so yeah, we might clean that
up, if someone could come up with a plan of where/how to implement it.

Cheers,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg)