QEMU-Devel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
* [PATCH] hw/arm/virt: Fix PL061 node name and properties
@ 2020-05-19  8:49 Geert Uytterhoeven
  2020-05-21 16:59 ` Peter Maydell
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2020-05-19  8:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Maydell
  Cc: qemu-arm, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, Geert Uytterhoeven, qemu-devel

Make the created node comply with the PL061 Device Tree bindings:
  - Use generic node name "gpio" instead of "pl061",
  - Add missing "#interrupt-cells" and "interrupt-controller"
    properties.

Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
---
Split off from "[PATCH QEMU v2 2/5] ARM: PL061: Extract pl061_create_fdt()"
(https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200423090118.11199-3-geert+renesas@glider.be).
---
 hw/arm/virt.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
index 7dc96abf72cf2b9a..99593d7bce4d85cb 100644
--- a/hw/arm/virt.c
+++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
@@ -818,13 +818,15 @@ static void create_gpio(const VirtMachineState *vms)
                                      qdev_get_gpio_in(vms->gic, irq));
 
     uint32_t phandle = qemu_fdt_alloc_phandle(vms->fdt);
-    nodename = g_strdup_printf("/pl061@%" PRIx64, base);
+    nodename = g_strdup_printf("/gpio@%" PRIx64, base);
     qemu_fdt_add_subnode(vms->fdt, nodename);
     qemu_fdt_setprop_sized_cells(vms->fdt, nodename, "reg",
                                  2, base, 2, size);
     qemu_fdt_setprop(vms->fdt, nodename, "compatible", compat, sizeof(compat));
     qemu_fdt_setprop_cell(vms->fdt, nodename, "#gpio-cells", 2);
     qemu_fdt_setprop(vms->fdt, nodename, "gpio-controller", NULL, 0);
+    qemu_fdt_setprop_cell(vms->fdt, nodename, "#interrupt-cells", 2);
+    qemu_fdt_setprop(vms->fdt, nodename, "interrupt-controller", NULL, 0);
     qemu_fdt_setprop_cells(vms->fdt, nodename, "interrupts",
                            GIC_FDT_IRQ_TYPE_SPI, irq,
                            GIC_FDT_IRQ_FLAGS_LEVEL_HI);
-- 
2.17.1



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] hw/arm/virt: Fix PL061 node name and properties
  2020-05-19  8:49 [PATCH] hw/arm/virt: Fix PL061 node name and properties Geert Uytterhoeven
@ 2020-05-21 16:59 ` Peter Maydell
  2020-05-22  8:29   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Peter Maydell @ 2020-05-21 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Geert Uytterhoeven; +Cc: qemu-arm, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, QEMU Developers

On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 09:49, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert+renesas@glider.be> wrote:
> Make the created node comply with the PL061 Device Tree bindings:
>   - Use generic node name "gpio" instead of "pl061",
>   - Add missing "#interrupt-cells" and "interrupt-controller"
>     properties.

Where have these properties come from? They must be optional,
because in the version of the binding documentation from Linux
5.0 they're not described:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.0/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/pl061-gpio.txt

They seem to have magically appeared in kernel commit
910f38bed9439e765f7e, which purports to only be a change
of format from plain text to yaml but has added some
extra properties and claimed them to be mandatory.

Since the devicetree spec says that the interrupt-controller
property "defines a node as an interrupt controller node"
and a GPIO chip isn't an interrupt controller, this seems
like some kind of error in the dtb binding. Maybe I'm
missing something...

What actually goes wrong if QEMU doesn't specify these
properties?

> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
> index 7dc96abf72cf2b9a..99593d7bce4d85cb 100644
> --- a/hw/arm/virt.c
> +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
> @@ -818,13 +818,15 @@ static void create_gpio(const VirtMachineState *vms)
>                                       qdev_get_gpio_in(vms->gic, irq));
>
>      uint32_t phandle = qemu_fdt_alloc_phandle(vms->fdt);
> -    nodename = g_strdup_printf("/pl061@%" PRIx64, base);
> +    nodename = g_strdup_printf("/gpio@%" PRIx64, base);

Does the devicetree binding really mandate what the node name is?
I thought that finding the right device was doe via the
'compatible' string and the nodename could be whatever the
device tree creator wanted.

thanks
-- PMM


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] hw/arm/virt: Fix PL061 node name and properties
  2020-05-21 16:59 ` Peter Maydell
@ 2020-05-22  8:29   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
  2020-05-22  9:30     ` Peter Maydell
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2020-05-22  8:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Maydell; +Cc: qemu-arm, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, QEMU Developers

Hi Peter,

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:59 PM Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 09:49, Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert+renesas@glider.be> wrote:
> > Make the created node comply with the PL061 Device Tree bindings:
> >   - Use generic node name "gpio" instead of "pl061",
> >   - Add missing "#interrupt-cells" and "interrupt-controller"
> >     properties.
>
> Where have these properties come from? They must be optional,
> because in the version of the binding documentation from Linux
> 5.0 they're not described:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.0/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/pl061-gpio.txt

Many old DT bindings are incomplete.

> They seem to have magically appeared in kernel commit
> 910f38bed9439e765f7e, which purports to only be a change
> of format from plain text to yaml but has added some
> extra properties and claimed them to be mandatory.

The main motivation behind the conversion from plain text to yaml is to
do automatic validation of DTS files, based on the bindings.  During the
conversion process, many issues are detected, and fixed; not only in the
DTS files, but also in the bindings (e.g. missing properties, like in
this case).

When running the validation on a device tree passed to the guest
(extracted from /sys/firmware/devicetree/base, converted to dts, and
 manually fixed up the phandles), the following is reported about the
pl061 node:

    virt.dt.yaml: pl061@9030000: {'reg': [[0, 151191552, 0, 4096]],
'gpio-controller': True, 'phandle': [[32771]], '#gpio-cells': [[2]],
'clocks': [[32768]], '#interrupt-cells': [[2]], 'compatible':
['arm,pl061', 'arm,primecell'], 'clock-names': ['apb_pclk'],
'$nodename': ['pl061@9030000']} is not valid under any of the given
schemas
    [...]
            virt.dt.yaml: pl061@9030000: 'interrupts' is a required property

    virt.dt.yaml: pl061@9030000: $nodename:0: 'pl061@9030000' does not
match '^gpio@[0-9a-f]+$'
    virt.dt.yaml: pl061@9030000: 'interrupt-controller' is a required property

> Since the devicetree spec says that the interrupt-controller
> property "defines a node as an interrupt controller node"
> and a GPIO chip isn't an interrupt controller, this seems
> like some kind of error in the dtb binding. Maybe I'm
> missing something...

PL061 is an interrupt controller, as it can assert its interrupt output
based on activity on GPIO input lines.

> What actually goes wrong if QEMU doesn't specify these
> properties?

It means that other devices that have their interrupt output connected
to a PL061 GPIO input won't work, as their driver in the guest OS cannot
find the interrupt.  Note that arm/virt.c currently doesn't instantiate
such devices.

> > diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
> > index 7dc96abf72cf2b9a..99593d7bce4d85cb 100644
> > --- a/hw/arm/virt.c
> > +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
> > @@ -818,13 +818,15 @@ static void create_gpio(const VirtMachineState *vms)
> >                                       qdev_get_gpio_in(vms->gic, irq));
> >
> >      uint32_t phandle = qemu_fdt_alloc_phandle(vms->fdt);
> > -    nodename = g_strdup_printf("/pl061@%" PRIx64, base);
> > +    nodename = g_strdup_printf("/gpio@%" PRIx64, base);
>
> Does the devicetree binding really mandate what the node name is?
> I thought that finding the right device was doe via the
> 'compatible' string and the nodename could be whatever the
> device tree creator wanted.

Matching is indeed done based on compatible value.

For node names, please see
https://github.com/devicetree-org/devicetree-specification/releases/tag/v0.3

   "2.2.2 Generic Names Recommendation

    The name of a node should be somewhat generic, reflecting the
    function of the device and not its precise programming model. If
    appropriate, the name should be one of the following choices:

    [...]

    - gpio

    [...]"

While many new generic names have been added recently, "gpio" was
already documented in the Power.orgTM Standard for Embedded Power
ArchitectureTM Platform Requirements (ePAPR).

I hope the above explains the rationale behind these change better.
Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] hw/arm/virt: Fix PL061 node name and properties
  2020-05-22  8:29   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
@ 2020-05-22  9:30     ` Peter Maydell
  2020-05-22  9:46       ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Peter Maydell @ 2020-05-22  9:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Geert Uytterhoeven; +Cc: qemu-arm, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, QEMU Developers

On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 09:29, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:59 PM Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 09:49, Geert Uytterhoeven
> > <geert+renesas@glider.be> wrote:
> > > Make the created node comply with the PL061 Device Tree bindings:
> > >   - Use generic node name "gpio" instead of "pl061",
> > >   - Add missing "#interrupt-cells" and "interrupt-controller"
> > >     properties.
> >
> > Where have these properties come from? They must be optional,
> > because in the version of the binding documentation from Linux
> > 5.0 they're not described:
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.0/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/pl061-gpio.txt
>
> Many old DT bindings are incomplete.

Yeah, but production QEMU is out there in the world based on
the old DT binding documentation. So you can't unilaterally
make a part of the binding that wasn't documented and that QEMU
didn't emit mandatory. It might be preferable for new QEMU to
emit it, of course.

> When running the validation on a device tree passed to the guest
> (extracted from /sys/firmware/devicetree/base, converted to dts, and
>  manually fixed up the phandles), the following is reported about the
> pl061 node:
>
>     virt.dt.yaml: pl061@9030000: {'reg': [[0, 151191552, 0, 4096]],
> 'gpio-controller': True, 'phandle': [[32771]], '#gpio-cells': [[2]],
> 'clocks': [[32768]], '#interrupt-cells': [[2]], 'compatible':
> ['arm,pl061', 'arm,primecell'], 'clock-names': ['apb_pclk'],
> '$nodename': ['pl061@9030000']} is not valid under any of the given
> schemas
>     [...]
>             virt.dt.yaml: pl061@9030000: 'interrupts' is a required property
>
>     virt.dt.yaml: pl061@9030000: $nodename:0: 'pl061@9030000' does not
> match '^gpio@[0-9a-f]+$'
>     virt.dt.yaml: pl061@9030000: 'interrupt-controller' is a required property

This is just saying "the yaml says these things are mandatory".
You could equally get rid of them by marking them optional in
the yaml, right?

Also, complaining about the nodename seems like a bug in the
validation: it is not a mandatory part of the spec, just a
recommendation.

> > Since the devicetree spec says that the interrupt-controller
> > property "defines a node as an interrupt controller node"
> > and a GPIO chip isn't an interrupt controller, this seems
> > like some kind of error in the dtb binding. Maybe I'm
> > missing something...
>
> PL061 is an interrupt controller, as it can assert its interrupt output
> based on activity on GPIO input lines.

By that logic the PL011 UART is an interrupt controller, because
it can assert its interrupt output based on activity on the serial
port input lines.

A GPIO controller is not an interrupt controller inherently.
Maybe you can use it in a system design as an interrupt
controller if you want to, and in that system's dtb perhaps
it would make sense to label it as one, but the virt board's
PL061 is in no way an interrupt controller -- it's just a GPIO
controller.

> > What actually goes wrong if QEMU doesn't specify these
> > properties?
>
> It means that other devices that have their interrupt output connected
> to a PL061 GPIO input won't work, as their driver in the guest OS cannot
> find the interrupt.  Note that arm/virt.c currently doesn't instantiate
> such devices.

OK. But why would we want to run an interrupt line through the GPIO
controller when we have a perfectly good interrupt controller in
the system already?

It might be reasonable to add the properties now to avoid setting
a bear trap for ourselves in future; on the other hand if running
interrupt lines through the GPIO controller doesn't work then it
acts as a nudge to stop people adding devices that are wired
up in a weird way.

> > > diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
> > > index 7dc96abf72cf2b9a..99593d7bce4d85cb 100644
> > > --- a/hw/arm/virt.c
> > > +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
> > > @@ -818,13 +818,15 @@ static void create_gpio(const VirtMachineState *vms)
> > >                                       qdev_get_gpio_in(vms->gic, irq));
> > >
> > >      uint32_t phandle = qemu_fdt_alloc_phandle(vms->fdt);
> > > -    nodename = g_strdup_printf("/pl061@%" PRIx64, base);
> > > +    nodename = g_strdup_printf("/gpio@%" PRIx64, base);
> >
> > Does the devicetree binding really mandate what the node name is?
> > I thought that finding the right device was doe via the
> > 'compatible' string and the nodename could be whatever the
> > device tree creator wanted.
>
> Matching is indeed done based on compatible value.

OK, then we don't need to change the node name here. Lots
of the other devices on the virt board have node names that
happen to use the device name rather than being more generic.

thanks
-- PMM


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] hw/arm/virt: Fix PL061 node name and properties
  2020-05-22  9:30     ` Peter Maydell
@ 2020-05-22  9:46       ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé @ 2020-05-22  9:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Maydell, Geert Uytterhoeven; +Cc: qemu-arm, QEMU Developers

On 5/22/20 11:30 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 09:29, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:59 PM Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 09:49, Geert Uytterhoeven
>>> <geert+renesas@glider.be> wrote:
>>>> Make the created node comply with the PL061 Device Tree bindings:
>>>>    - Use generic node name "gpio" instead of "pl061",
>>>>    - Add missing "#interrupt-cells" and "interrupt-controller"
>>>>      properties.
>>>
[...]
>>> Since the devicetree spec says that the interrupt-controller
>>> property "defines a node as an interrupt controller node"
>>> and a GPIO chip isn't an interrupt controller, this seems
>>> like some kind of error in the dtb binding. Maybe I'm
>>> missing something...
>>
>> PL061 is an interrupt controller, as it can assert its interrupt output
>> based on activity on GPIO input lines.
> 
> By that logic the PL011 UART is an interrupt controller, because
> it can assert its interrupt output based on activity on the serial
> port input lines.

Yes :)

> A GPIO controller is not an interrupt controller inherently.
> Maybe you can use it in a system design as an interrupt
> controller if you want to, and in that system's dtb perhaps
> it would make sense to label it as one, but the virt board's
> PL061 is in no way an interrupt controller -- it's just a GPIO
> controller.
> 
>>> What actually goes wrong if QEMU doesn't specify these
>>> properties?
>>
>> It means that other devices that have their interrupt output connected
>> to a PL061 GPIO input won't work, as their driver in the guest OS cannot
>> find the interrupt.  Note that arm/virt.c currently doesn't instantiate
>> such devices.
> 
> OK. But why would we want to run an interrupt line through the GPIO
> controller when we have a perfectly good interrupt controller in
> the system already?

This is sometimes done on embedded devices when all the INTC lines are 
already wired. You'd use extra lines on free peripherals. Usually the 
peripheral offer a limited GPIO mode as passthru interrupt, else you use 
nasty hacks...

> 
> It might be reasonable to add the properties now to avoid setting
> a bear trap for ourselves in future; on the other hand if running
> interrupt lines through the GPIO controller doesn't work then it
> acts as a nudge to stop people adding devices that are wired
> up in a weird way.
[...]


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-05-19  8:49 [PATCH] hw/arm/virt: Fix PL061 node name and properties Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-05-21 16:59 ` Peter Maydell
2020-05-22  8:29   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-05-22  9:30     ` Peter Maydell
2020-05-22  9:46       ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé

QEMU-Devel Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/0 qemu-devel/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/1 qemu-devel/git/1.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 qemu-devel qemu-devel/ https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel \
		qemu-devel@nongnu.org
	public-inbox-index qemu-devel

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.nongnu.qemu-devel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git