On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Rowand, Frank
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In recent years there have been proposed tools to aid in the creation of valid
> device trees and in debugging device tree issues. An example of this is the
> various approaches proposed (with source code provided) to validate device tree
> source against valid bindings. As of today, device tree related tools,
> techniques, and debugging infrastructure have not progressed very far. I have
> submitted a device tree related proposal for the Linux Plumbers 2015 conference
> to spur action and innovation in such tools, techniques, and debugging
> infrastructure.
>
> The current title of the track is "Device Tree Tools, Validation, and
> Troubleshooting". The proposal is located at
>
> http://wiki.linuxplumbersconf.org/2015:device_tree_tools_validation_and_trouble_shooting
>
> I am looking for several things at the moment:
>
> 1) Suggestions of additional topics to be discussed.
A few things on my list:
- Supported and not supported overlay usecases
- Tools for overlays - I think overlays has created new challenges in
validation and a need for new tools. How to test an overlay applies?
Generating a dtb from dts + overlay dts. Generating an overlay from a
diff of old and new dts (overlay as a way to update old dtbs)
- Shrinking the binding review fire hose. How to improve binding
documentation structure and review.
- Standardizing Android dtb handling. Appended DTB for arm64? Not
liked by upstream, but already in use.
> 2) Emails or other messages expressing an interest in attending the
> device tree track.
>
> 3) Commitments to attend the device tree track (the conference committee
> is looking at attendee interest and commitments as part of the process
> of accepting the device tree track).
I plan to attend. I'm probably attending some of the Android mini conf
too, so I'll have to split my time.
> 4) Identifying additional people who should attend the device tree track.
Arnd Bergmann
Matt Porter
Jon Loeliger
Gaurav Minocha
Rob
> The desired outcome of the device tree track is to encourage the future
> development of tools, process, etc to make device tree related development,
> test, review and system administration more efficient, faster, easier, more
> robust, and to improve troubleshooting and debugging facilities. Some
> examples of areas of interest could include:
> - make it easier to create correct device tree source files
> - support for debugging incorrect device tree source files
> - create a kernel that correctly boots one or more specific device trees
> (eg a kernel configured to include the proper drivers and subsystems)
> - create drivers that properly work for a device tree binding definition
> - create drivers that support detecting errors in the related node(s) in
> a device tree
>
> The wiki page lists additional areas of interest.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Frank Rowand
> Sony Mobile Communications
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 04:36:15PM +0100, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Rowand, Frank
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In recent years there have been proposed tools to aid in the creation of valid
> > device trees and in debugging device tree issues. An example of this is the
> > various approaches proposed (with source code provided) to validate device tree
> > source against valid bindings. As of today, device tree related tools,
> > techniques, and debugging infrastructure have not progressed very far. I have
> > submitted a device tree related proposal for the Linux Plumbers 2015 conference
> > to spur action and innovation in such tools, techniques, and debugging
> > infrastructure.
> >
> > The current title of the track is "Device Tree Tools, Validation, and
> > Troubleshooting". The proposal is located at
> >
> > http://wiki.linuxplumbersconf.org/2015:device_tree_tools_validation_and_trouble_shooting
> >
> > I am looking for several things at the moment:
> >
> > 1) Suggestions of additional topics to be discussed.
>
> A few things on my list:
>
> - Supported and not supported overlay usecases
I guess Kernel-driven overlay application (it's been called "quirks"
elsewhere) would fall under this? It's rather scary, and would need
fairly strict rules to be feasible and remain maintainable, which is
going to limit where it can be used.
I think the core guys for that are on the list already?
> - Standardizing Android dtb handling. Appended DTB for arm64? Not
> liked by upstream, but already in use.
If people are going to package a kernel and DTB together, it would be
nice if they could at least be easily decomposed (using something like
FIT).
So +1 for that discussion.
> > 2) Emails or other messages expressing an interest in attending the
> > device tree track.
I'm interested.
> > 3) Commitments to attend the device tree track (the conference committee
> > is looking at attendee interest and commitments as part of the process
> > of accepting the device tree track).
If the DT track goes ahead, I'll be there.
Mark.
On Tuesday 14 April 2015 10:36:15 Rob Herring wrote:
>
> > 4) Identifying additional people who should attend the device tree track.
>
> Arnd Bergmann
> Matt Porter
> Jon Loeliger
> Gaurav Minocha
Sorry, I won't be there. I should have replied earlier, but I'll be on
parental leave at the time.
Arnd
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:36:15AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Rowand, Frank
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In recent years there have been proposed tools to aid in the creation of valid
> > device trees and in debugging device tree issues. An example of this is the
> > various approaches proposed (with source code provided) to validate device tree
> > source against valid bindings. As of today, device tree related tools,
> > techniques, and debugging infrastructure have not progressed very far. I have
> > submitted a device tree related proposal for the Linux Plumbers 2015 conference
> > to spur action and innovation in such tools, techniques, and debugging
> > infrastructure.
> >
> > The current title of the track is "Device Tree Tools, Validation, and
> > Troubleshooting". The proposal is located at
> >
> > http://wiki.linuxplumbersconf.org/2015:device_tree_tools_validation_and_trouble_shooting
> >
> > I am looking for several things at the moment:
> >
> > 1) Suggestions of additional topics to be discussed.
>
> A few things on my list:
>
> - Supported and not supported overlay usecases
> - Tools for overlays - I think overlays has created new challenges in
> validation and a need for new tools. How to test an overlay applies?
> Generating a dtb from dts + overlay dts. Generating an overlay from a
> diff of old and new dts (overlay as a way to update old dtbs)
> - Shrinking the binding review fire hose. How to improve binding
> documentation structure and review.
> - Standardizing Android dtb handling. Appended DTB for arm64? Not
> liked by upstream, but already in use.
- Clean up of existing hardware-specific bindings to conform to the
generic bindings, working dts files in the kernel tree, and bring
consistency to the documentation style/syntax.
> > 2) Emails or other messages expressing an interest in attending the
> > device tree track.
> >
> > 3) Commitments to attend the device tree track (the conference committee
> > is looking at attendee interest and commitments as part of the process
> > of accepting the device tree track).
>
> I plan to attend. I'm probably attending some of the Android mini conf
> too, so I'll have to split my time.
>
> > 4) Identifying additional people who should attend the device tree track.
>
> Arnd Bergmann
> Matt Porter
> Jon Loeliger
> Gaurav Minocha
I also plan to attend. I have an interest in most of the topics already
mentioned as well as the topic I added above.
-Matt
So, like, Arnd Bergmann said:
> On Tuesday 14 April 2015 10:36:15 Rob Herring wrote:
> >
> > > 4) Identifying additional people who should attend the device tree track.
> >
> > Arnd Bergmann
> > Matt Porter
> > Jon Loeliger
> > Gaurav Minocha
>
> Sorry, I won't be there. I should have replied earlier, but I'll be on
> parental leave at the time.
>
> Arnd
Arnd,
OK. Hard to believe, but it looks like I have enough
ducks in a row to attend Plumber's this year!
Thanks,
jdl