421 lines
		
	
	
		
			19 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			ReStructuredText
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			421 lines
		
	
	
		
			19 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			ReStructuredText
		
	
	
	
	
	
| .. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 | |
| 
 | |
| ========================
 | |
| Linux and the Devicetree
 | |
| ========================
 | |
| 
 | |
| The Linux usage model for device tree data
 | |
| 
 | |
| :Author: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
 | |
| 
 | |
| This article describes how Linux uses the device tree.  An overview of
 | |
| the device tree data format can be found on the device tree usage page
 | |
| at devicetree.org\ [1]_.
 | |
| 
 | |
| .. [1] https://www.devicetree.org/specifications/
 | |
| 
 | |
| The "Open Firmware Device Tree", or simply Devicetree (DT), is a data
 | |
| structure and language for describing hardware.  More specifically, it
 | |
| is a description of hardware that is readable by an operating system
 | |
| so that the operating system doesn't need to hard code details of the
 | |
| machine.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Structurally, the DT is a tree, or acyclic graph with named nodes, and
 | |
| nodes may have an arbitrary number of named properties encapsulating
 | |
| arbitrary data.  A mechanism also exists to create arbitrary
 | |
| links from one node to another outside of the natural tree structure.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Conceptually, a common set of usage conventions, called 'bindings',
 | |
| is defined for how data should appear in the tree to describe typical
 | |
| hardware characteristics including data busses, interrupt lines, GPIO
 | |
| connections, and peripheral devices.
 | |
| 
 | |
| As much as possible, hardware is described using existing bindings to
 | |
| maximize use of existing support code, but since property and node
 | |
| names are simply text strings, it is easy to extend existing bindings
 | |
| or create new ones by defining new nodes and properties.  Be wary,
 | |
| however, of creating a new binding without first doing some homework
 | |
| about what already exists.  There are currently two different,
 | |
| incompatible, bindings for i2c busses that came about because the new
 | |
| binding was created without first investigating how i2c devices were
 | |
| already being enumerated in existing systems.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 1. History
 | |
| ----------
 | |
| The DT was originally created by Open Firmware as part of the
 | |
| communication method for passing data from Open Firmware to a client
 | |
| program (like to an operating system).  An operating system used the
 | |
| Device Tree to discover the topology of the hardware at runtime, and
 | |
| thereby support a majority of available hardware without hard coded
 | |
| information (assuming drivers were available for all devices).
 | |
| 
 | |
| Since Open Firmware is commonly used on PowerPC and SPARC platforms,
 | |
| the Linux support for those architectures has for a long time used the
 | |
| Device Tree.
 | |
| 
 | |
| In 2005, when PowerPC Linux began a major cleanup and to merge 32-bit
 | |
| and 64-bit support, the decision was made to require DT support on all
 | |
| powerpc platforms, regardless of whether or not they used Open
 | |
| Firmware.  To do this, a DT representation called the Flattened Device
 | |
| Tree (FDT) was created which could be passed to the kernel as a binary
 | |
| blob without requiring a real Open Firmware implementation.  U-Boot,
 | |
| kexec, and other bootloaders were modified to support both passing a
 | |
| Device Tree Binary (dtb) and to modify a dtb at boot time.  DT was
 | |
| also added to the PowerPC boot wrapper (``arch/powerpc/boot/*``) so that
 | |
| a dtb could be wrapped up with the kernel image to support booting
 | |
| existing non-DT aware firmware.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Some time later, FDT infrastructure was generalized to be usable by
 | |
| all architectures.  At the time of this writing, 6 mainlined
 | |
| architectures (arm, microblaze, mips, powerpc, sparc, and x86) and 1
 | |
| out of mainline (nios) have some level of DT support.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 2. Data Model
 | |
| -------------
 | |
| If you haven't already read the Device Tree Usage\ [1]_ page,
 | |
| then go read it now.  It's okay, I'll wait....
 | |
| 
 | |
| 2.1 High Level View
 | |
| -------------------
 | |
| The most important thing to understand is that the DT is simply a data
 | |
| structure that describes the hardware.  There is nothing magical about
 | |
| it, and it doesn't magically make all hardware configuration problems
 | |
| go away.  What it does do is provide a language for decoupling the
 | |
| hardware configuration from the board and device driver support in the
 | |
| Linux kernel (or any other operating system for that matter).  Using
 | |
| it allows board and device support to become data driven; to make
 | |
| setup decisions based on data passed into the kernel instead of on
 | |
| per-machine hard coded selections.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Ideally, data driven platform setup should result in less code
 | |
| duplication and make it easier to support a wide range of hardware
 | |
| with a single kernel image.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Linux uses DT data for three major purposes:
 | |
| 
 | |
| 1) platform identification,
 | |
| 2) runtime configuration, and
 | |
| 3) device population.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 2.2 Platform Identification
 | |
| ---------------------------
 | |
| First and foremost, the kernel will use data in the DT to identify the
 | |
| specific machine.  In a perfect world, the specific platform shouldn't
 | |
| matter to the kernel because all platform details would be described
 | |
| perfectly by the device tree in a consistent and reliable manner.
 | |
| Hardware is not perfect though, and so the kernel must identify the
 | |
| machine during early boot so that it has the opportunity to run
 | |
| machine-specific fixups.
 | |
| 
 | |
| In the majority of cases, the machine identity is irrelevant, and the
 | |
| kernel will instead select setup code based on the machine's core
 | |
| CPU or SoC.  On ARM for example, setup_arch() in
 | |
| arch/arm/kernel/setup.c will call setup_machine_fdt() in
 | |
| arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c which searches through the machine_desc
 | |
| table and selects the machine_desc which best matches the device tree
 | |
| data.  It determines the best match by looking at the 'compatible'
 | |
| property in the root device tree node, and comparing it with the
 | |
| dt_compat list in struct machine_desc (which is defined in
 | |
| arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h if you're curious).
 | |
| 
 | |
| The 'compatible' property contains a sorted list of strings starting
 | |
| with the exact name of the machine, followed by an optional list of
 | |
| boards it is compatible with sorted from most compatible to least.  For
 | |
| example, the root compatible properties for the TI BeagleBoard and its
 | |
| successor, the BeagleBoard xM board might look like, respectively::
 | |
| 
 | |
| 	compatible = "ti,omap3-beagleboard", "ti,omap3450", "ti,omap3";
 | |
| 	compatible = "ti,omap3-beagleboard-xm", "ti,omap3450", "ti,omap3";
 | |
| 
 | |
| Where "ti,omap3-beagleboard-xm" specifies the exact model, it also
 | |
| claims that it compatible with the OMAP 3450 SoC, and the omap3 family
 | |
| of SoCs in general.  You'll notice that the list is sorted from most
 | |
| specific (exact board) to least specific (SoC family).
 | |
| 
 | |
| Astute readers might point out that the Beagle xM could also claim
 | |
| compatibility with the original Beagle board.  However, one should be
 | |
| cautioned about doing so at the board level since there is typically a
 | |
| high level of change from one board to another, even within the same
 | |
| product line, and it is hard to nail down exactly what is meant when one
 | |
| board claims to be compatible with another.  For the top level, it is
 | |
| better to err on the side of caution and not claim one board is
 | |
| compatible with another.  The notable exception would be when one
 | |
| board is a carrier for another, such as a CPU module attached to a
 | |
| carrier board.
 | |
| 
 | |
| One more note on compatible values.  Any string used in a compatible
 | |
| property must be documented as to what it indicates.  Add
 | |
| documentation for compatible strings in Documentation/devicetree/bindings.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Again on ARM, for each machine_desc, the kernel looks to see if
 | |
| any of the dt_compat list entries appear in the compatible property.
 | |
| If one does, then that machine_desc is a candidate for driving the
 | |
| machine.  After searching the entire table of machine_descs,
 | |
| setup_machine_fdt() returns the 'most compatible' machine_desc based
 | |
| on which entry in the compatible property each machine_desc matches
 | |
| against.  If no matching machine_desc is found, then it returns NULL.
 | |
| 
 | |
| The reasoning behind this scheme is the observation that in the majority
 | |
| of cases, a single machine_desc can support a large number of boards
 | |
| if they all use the same SoC, or same family of SoCs.  However,
 | |
| invariably there will be some exceptions where a specific board will
 | |
| require special setup code that is not useful in the generic case.
 | |
| Special cases could be handled by explicitly checking for the
 | |
| troublesome board(s) in generic setup code, but doing so very quickly
 | |
| becomes ugly and/or unmaintainable if it is more than just a couple of
 | |
| cases.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Instead, the compatible list allows a generic machine_desc to provide
 | |
| support for a wide common set of boards by specifying "less
 | |
| compatible" values in the dt_compat list.  In the example above,
 | |
| generic board support can claim compatibility with "ti,omap3" or
 | |
| "ti,omap3450".  If a bug was discovered on the original beagleboard
 | |
| that required special workaround code during early boot, then a new
 | |
| machine_desc could be added which implements the workarounds and only
 | |
| matches on "ti,omap3-beagleboard".
 | |
| 
 | |
| PowerPC uses a slightly different scheme where it calls the .probe()
 | |
| hook from each machine_desc, and the first one returning TRUE is used.
 | |
| However, this approach does not take into account the priority of the
 | |
| compatible list, and probably should be avoided for new architecture
 | |
| support.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 2.3 Runtime configuration
 | |
| -------------------------
 | |
| In most cases, a DT will be the sole method of communicating data from
 | |
| firmware to the kernel, so also gets used to pass in runtime and
 | |
| configuration data like the kernel parameters string and the location
 | |
| of an initrd image.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Most of this data is contained in the /chosen node, and when booting
 | |
| Linux it will look something like this::
 | |
| 
 | |
| 	chosen {
 | |
| 		bootargs = "console=ttyS0,115200 loglevel=8";
 | |
| 		initrd-start = <0xc8000000>;
 | |
| 		initrd-end = <0xc8200000>;
 | |
| 	};
 | |
| 
 | |
| The bootargs property contains the kernel arguments, and the initrd-*
 | |
| properties define the address and size of an initrd blob.  Note that
 | |
| initrd-end is the first address after the initrd image, so this doesn't
 | |
| match the usual semantic of struct resource.  The chosen node may also
 | |
| optionally contain an arbitrary number of additional properties for
 | |
| platform-specific configuration data.
 | |
| 
 | |
| During early boot, the architecture setup code calls of_scan_flat_dt()
 | |
| several times with different helper callbacks to parse device tree
 | |
| data before paging is setup.  The of_scan_flat_dt() code scans through
 | |
| the device tree and uses the helpers to extract information required
 | |
| during early boot.  Typically the early_init_dt_scan_chosen() helper
 | |
| is used to parse the chosen node including kernel parameters,
 | |
| early_init_dt_scan_root() to initialize the DT address space model,
 | |
| and early_init_dt_scan_memory() to determine the size and
 | |
| location of usable RAM.
 | |
| 
 | |
| On ARM, the function setup_machine_fdt() is responsible for early
 | |
| scanning of the device tree after selecting the correct machine_desc
 | |
| that supports the board.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 2.4 Device population
 | |
| ---------------------
 | |
| After the board has been identified, and after the early configuration data
 | |
| has been parsed, then kernel initialization can proceed in the normal
 | |
| way.  At some point in this process, unflatten_device_tree() is called
 | |
| to convert the data into a more efficient runtime representation.
 | |
| This is also when machine-specific setup hooks will get called, like
 | |
| the machine_desc .init_early(), .init_irq() and .init_machine() hooks
 | |
| on ARM.  The remainder of this section uses examples from the ARM
 | |
| implementation, but all architectures will do pretty much the same
 | |
| thing when using a DT.
 | |
| 
 | |
| As can be guessed by the names, .init_early() is used for any machine-
 | |
| specific setup that needs to be executed early in the boot process,
 | |
| and .init_irq() is used to set up interrupt handling.  Using a DT
 | |
| doesn't materially change the behaviour of either of these functions.
 | |
| If a DT is provided, then both .init_early() and .init_irq() are able
 | |
| to call any of the DT query functions (of_* in include/linux/of*.h) to
 | |
| get additional data about the platform.
 | |
| 
 | |
| The most interesting hook in the DT context is .init_machine() which
 | |
| is primarily responsible for populating the Linux device model with
 | |
| data about the platform.  Historically this has been implemented on
 | |
| embedded platforms by defining a set of static clock structures,
 | |
| platform_devices, and other data in the board support .c file, and
 | |
| registering it en-masse in .init_machine().  When DT is used, then
 | |
| instead of hard coding static devices for each platform, the list of
 | |
| devices can be obtained by parsing the DT, and allocating device
 | |
| structures dynamically.
 | |
| 
 | |
| The simplest case is when .init_machine() is only responsible for
 | |
| registering a block of platform_devices.  A platform_device is a concept
 | |
| used by Linux for memory or I/O mapped devices which cannot be detected
 | |
| by hardware, and for 'composite' or 'virtual' devices (more on those
 | |
| later).  While there is no 'platform device' terminology for the DT,
 | |
| platform devices roughly correspond to device nodes at the root of the
 | |
| tree and children of simple memory mapped bus nodes.
 | |
| 
 | |
| About now is a good time to lay out an example.  Here is part of the
 | |
| device tree for the NVIDIA Tegra board::
 | |
| 
 | |
|   /{
 | |
| 	compatible = "nvidia,harmony", "nvidia,tegra20";
 | |
| 	#address-cells = <1>;
 | |
| 	#size-cells = <1>;
 | |
| 	interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
 | |
| 
 | |
| 	chosen { };
 | |
| 	aliases { };
 | |
| 
 | |
| 	memory {
 | |
| 		device_type = "memory";
 | |
| 		reg = <0x00000000 0x40000000>;
 | |
| 	};
 | |
| 
 | |
| 	soc {
 | |
| 		compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-soc", "simple-bus";
 | |
| 		#address-cells = <1>;
 | |
| 		#size-cells = <1>;
 | |
| 		ranges;
 | |
| 
 | |
| 		intc: interrupt-controller@50041000 {
 | |
| 			compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-gic";
 | |
| 			interrupt-controller;
 | |
| 			#interrupt-cells = <1>;
 | |
| 			reg = <0x50041000 0x1000>, < 0x50040100 0x0100 >;
 | |
| 		};
 | |
| 
 | |
| 		serial@70006300 {
 | |
| 			compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-uart";
 | |
| 			reg = <0x70006300 0x100>;
 | |
| 			interrupts = <122>;
 | |
| 		};
 | |
| 
 | |
| 		i2s1: i2s@70002800 {
 | |
| 			compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-i2s";
 | |
| 			reg = <0x70002800 0x100>;
 | |
| 			interrupts = <77>;
 | |
| 			codec = <&wm8903>;
 | |
| 		};
 | |
| 
 | |
| 		i2c@7000c000 {
 | |
| 			compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-i2c";
 | |
| 			#address-cells = <1>;
 | |
| 			#size-cells = <0>;
 | |
| 			reg = <0x7000c000 0x100>;
 | |
| 			interrupts = <70>;
 | |
| 
 | |
| 			wm8903: codec@1a {
 | |
| 				compatible = "wlf,wm8903";
 | |
| 				reg = <0x1a>;
 | |
| 				interrupts = <347>;
 | |
| 			};
 | |
| 		};
 | |
| 	};
 | |
| 
 | |
| 	sound {
 | |
| 		compatible = "nvidia,harmony-sound";
 | |
| 		i2s-controller = <&i2s1>;
 | |
| 		i2s-codec = <&wm8903>;
 | |
| 	};
 | |
|   };
 | |
| 
 | |
| At .init_machine() time, Tegra board support code will need to look at
 | |
| this DT and decide which nodes to create platform_devices for.
 | |
| However, looking at the tree, it is not immediately obvious what kind
 | |
| of device each node represents, or even if a node represents a device
 | |
| at all.  The /chosen, /aliases, and /memory nodes are informational
 | |
| nodes that don't describe devices (although arguably memory could be
 | |
| considered a device).  The children of the /soc node are memory mapped
 | |
| devices, but the codec@1a is an i2c device, and the sound node
 | |
| represents not a device, but rather how other devices are connected
 | |
| together to create the audio subsystem.  I know what each device is
 | |
| because I'm familiar with the board design, but how does the kernel
 | |
| know what to do with each node?
 | |
| 
 | |
| The trick is that the kernel starts at the root of the tree and looks
 | |
| for nodes that have a 'compatible' property.  First, it is generally
 | |
| assumed that any node with a 'compatible' property represents a device
 | |
| of some kind, and second, it can be assumed that any node at the root
 | |
| of the tree is either directly attached to the processor bus, or is a
 | |
| miscellaneous system device that cannot be described any other way.
 | |
| For each of these nodes, Linux allocates and registers a
 | |
| platform_device, which in turn may get bound to a platform_driver.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Why is using a platform_device for these nodes a safe assumption?
 | |
| Well, for the way that Linux models devices, just about all bus_types
 | |
| assume that its devices are children of a bus controller.  For
 | |
| example, each i2c_client is a child of an i2c_master.  Each spi_device
 | |
| is a child of an SPI bus.  Similarly for USB, PCI, MDIO, etc.  The
 | |
| same hierarchy is also found in the DT, where I2C device nodes only
 | |
| ever appear as children of an I2C bus node.  Ditto for SPI, MDIO, USB,
 | |
| etc.  The only devices which do not require a specific type of parent
 | |
| device are platform_devices (and amba_devices, but more on that
 | |
| later), which will happily live at the base of the Linux /sys/devices
 | |
| tree.  Therefore, if a DT node is at the root of the tree, then it
 | |
| really probably is best registered as a platform_device.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Linux board support code calls of_platform_populate(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL)
 | |
| to kick off discovery of devices at the root of the tree.  The
 | |
| parameters are all NULL because when starting from the root of the
 | |
| tree, there is no need to provide a starting node (the first NULL), a
 | |
| parent struct device (the last NULL), and we're not using a match
 | |
| table (yet).  For a board that only needs to register devices,
 | |
| .init_machine() can be completely empty except for the
 | |
| of_platform_populate() call.
 | |
| 
 | |
| In the Tegra example, this accounts for the /soc and /sound nodes, but
 | |
| what about the children of the SoC node?  Shouldn't they be registered
 | |
| as platform devices too?  For Linux DT support, the generic behaviour
 | |
| is for child devices to be registered by the parent's device driver at
 | |
| driver .probe() time.  So, an i2c bus device driver will register a
 | |
| i2c_client for each child node, an SPI bus driver will register
 | |
| its spi_device children, and similarly for other bus_types.
 | |
| According to that model, a driver could be written that binds to the
 | |
| SoC node and simply registers platform_devices for each of its
 | |
| children.  The board support code would allocate and register an SoC
 | |
| device, a (theoretical) SoC device driver could bind to the SoC device,
 | |
| and register platform_devices for /soc/interrupt-controller, /soc/serial,
 | |
| /soc/i2s, and /soc/i2c in its .probe() hook.  Easy, right?
 | |
| 
 | |
| Actually, it turns out that registering children of some
 | |
| platform_devices as more platform_devices is a common pattern, and the
 | |
| device tree support code reflects that and makes the above example
 | |
| simpler.  The second argument to of_platform_populate() is an
 | |
| of_device_id table, and any node that matches an entry in that table
 | |
| will also get its child nodes registered.  In the Tegra case, the code
 | |
| can look something like this::
 | |
| 
 | |
|   static void __init harmony_init_machine(void)
 | |
|   {
 | |
| 	/* ... */
 | |
| 	of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL);
 | |
|   }
 | |
| 
 | |
| "simple-bus" is defined in the Devicetree Specification as a property
 | |
| meaning a simple memory mapped bus, so the of_platform_populate() code
 | |
| could be written to just assume simple-bus compatible nodes will
 | |
| always be traversed.  However, we pass it in as an argument so that
 | |
| board support code can always override the default behaviour.
 | |
| 
 | |
| [Need to add discussion of adding i2c/spi/etc child devices]
 | |
| 
 | |
| Appendix A: AMBA devices
 | |
| ------------------------
 | |
| 
 | |
| ARM Primecells are a certain kind of device attached to the ARM AMBA
 | |
| bus which include some support for hardware detection and power
 | |
| management.  In Linux, struct amba_device and the amba_bus_type is
 | |
| used to represent Primecell devices.  However, the fiddly bit is that
 | |
| not all devices on an AMBA bus are Primecells, and for Linux it is
 | |
| typical for both amba_device and platform_device instances to be
 | |
| siblings of the same bus segment.
 | |
| 
 | |
| When using the DT, this creates problems for of_platform_populate()
 | |
| because it must decide whether to register each node as either a
 | |
| platform_device or an amba_device.  This unfortunately complicates the
 | |
| device creation model a little bit, but the solution turns out not to
 | |
| be too invasive.  If a node is compatible with "arm,amba-primecell", then
 | |
| of_platform_populate() will register it as an amba_device instead of a
 | |
| platform_device.
 |