lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/2] of: Add whitelist
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/05/17 11:33, Alan Tull wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/29/17 11:11, Alan Tull wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/27/17 15:58, Alan Tull wrote:
>>>>>>> Here's a proposal for a whitelist to lock down the dynamic device tree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For an overlay to be accepted, all of its targets are required to be
>>>>>>> on a target node whitelist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Currently the only way I have to get on the whitelist is calling a
>>>>>>> function to add a node. That works for fpga regions, but I think
>>>>>>> other uses will need a way of having adding specific nodes from the
>>>>>>> base device tree, such as by adding a property like 'allow-overlay;'
>>>>>>> or 'allow-overlay = "okay";' If that is acceptable, I could use some
>>>>>>> advice on where that particular code should go.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alan Tull (2):
>>>>>>> of: overlay: add whitelist
>>>>>>> fpga: of region: add of-fpga-region to whitelist
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> drivers/fpga/of-fpga-region.c | 9 ++++++
>>>>>>> drivers/of/overlay.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>> include/linux/of.h | 12 +++++++
>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 94 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The plan was to use connectors to restrict where an overlay could be applied.
>>>>>> I would prefer not to have multiple methods for accomplishing the same thing
>>>>>> unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Connector nodes need a mechanism to enable themselves, too. I don't
>>>>> think connector nodes are going to solve every usecase.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>> The two methods I'm suggesting are intended to handle different cases.
>>>> There will exist some drivers that by their nature will want every
>>>> instance to be enabled for overlays, such as fpga regions. The other
>>>> case is where drivers could support overlays but that's not the
>>>> widespread use for them. So no need to enable every instance of that
>>>> driver for overlays.
>>>
>>> I understand what the paragraph, to this point, means. But I had to
>>> read it several times to understand it because the way the concept is
>>> phrased clashed with my mental model.
>>
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>> I see where my explanation is confusing things. I was talking about
>> two methods for marking a node as being a valid target for an overlay
>> (use a function or add a DT property). I'll drop the idea of using a
>> DT property to enable a node for overlays and only focus on my
>> proposal of a function to enable nodes.
>>
>>>
>>> The device node is not an instance of a driver, which is why I was
>>> getting confused. (Yes, I do understand that the paragraph is talking
>>> about multiple device nodes that are bound to the same driver, but
>>> my mental model is tied to the device node, not to the driver.)
>>>
>>> If each of the device nodes in question is a connector, then each of
>>> the nodes will bind to a connector driver, based on the value of the
>>> compatible property. (This is of course a theoretical assumption on
>>> my part since the connectors are not yet implemented.)
>>>
>>> If the connector node is an fpga, or an fpga region (I may be getting
>>> my terminology wrong here - please correct as needed) then an fpga
>>> overlay could be applied to the node.
>>
>> We're still pre-connector currently, but yes I want to mark FPGA
>> regions as being valid targets. Then I can use Pantelis' configfs
>> interface to apply overlays while leaving the rest of the DT locked
>> down. That's the FPGA use of this patch in the pre-connector era of
>> things.
>>
>>>
>>> If I understand what you are saying, there will be some fpga connector
>>> nodes for which the usage at a given moment might be programmed to
>>> function in a manner that will not be described by an overlay, but
>>> at a different moment in time may be programmed in a way that needs
>>> to be described by an overlay. So there may be some times that it
>>> is valid to apply an overlay to the connector node and times that
>>> it is not valid to apply an overlay to the connector node.
>>
>> I think connectors would likely always be valid targets (but I could
>> be wrong) and other nodes would not be valid targets. The DT needs a
>> way to mark some nodes as valid targets, currently it doesn't have a
>> way of doing that. Every connector driver's probe could use this code
>> to mark itself as a valid target.
>>
>>>
>>> Is my understanding correct, or am I still confused?
>>
>> Hope that helps, sorry for the muddled explanation earlier.
>
> No need to be sorry, I always value what you have to say, and usually
> become more educated from reading what you write.
>
> We still seem to be talking at cross purposes. It seems that the model
> that you are describing is driver centric. My model is node centric.
>
> Once we figure out what the connector implementation and architecture
> are, it might be the case that each connector node has a driver bound
> to it, and that driver is able to tell the devicetree core code that
> the node that it is bound to is a valid place to apply an overlay.
>
> But I currently think that the core infrastructure code is what
> should recognize that a connector node is a valid place to apply
> an overlay. It _might_ even be the case the the connector
> architecture does not result in a driver being bound to the
> connector node.
>
> I would really prefer to get the connector architecture (and
> maybe also the implementation) before deciding how to handle
> the question of how to determine what nodes overlays can be
> appplied to.

Hi Frank,

I understand that you would want to wait until it is clear how
connectors will be implemented. So this method may work for
connectors or may not depending on how that all pans out. Thanks for
the discussion!

Alan

>
>
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>>
>>> -Frank
>>>
>>>> In that case the DT property provides some
>>>> granularity, only enabling overlays for specific instances of that
>>>> driver, leaving the rest of the DT locked down.>
>>>> If we only want one method, I would choose having the DT property only
>>>> and not exporting the functions. Users would have to add the property
>>>> for every FPGA region but that's not really painful. This would have
>>>> the benefit of still keeping the DT locked down unless someone
>>>> specifically wanted to enable some regions for overlays for their
>>>> particular use.
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-07 20:23    [W:0.066 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site