Re: Device tree representation of (hotplug) connectors: discussion at ELCE

Hi Hervé,

On Tue, 16 Sept 2025 at 08:46, Herve Codina <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 14:51:41 +1000
> David Gibson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 10:48:28AM +0200, Herve Codina wrote:
> > > From the addon board point of view, the only think we can
> > > say is "me, as an addon board, I need a connector of type 'foo' and a
> > > connector of type 'bar'".
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > Also, at base board level, statically defined in the DT
> > > connA is described (type 'foo'), connB and connC are
> > > described (type 'bar').
> > >
> > > The choice to map connA to the type 'foo' connector expected by the addon
> > > and the choice to map connB or connC to the type 'bar' connector expected by
> > > the addon can only be done at runtime and probably with the help of a driver
> > > that have the knowledge of the 3 connectors.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > I have the feeling that the choice of physical connectors to which the addon
> > > board is connected to is a human choice when the board is connected.
> >
> > Yes.  Although if the addons have an EEPROM, or some other sort of ID
> > register, it may be possible for some connector drivers to probe this.
>
> Right, I think we agree that a driver is needed to help in the mapping at
> least when multiple connectors are involved.

I agree you need a driver to read an ID EEPROM.
But why would you need a driver if no ID EEPROM is involved?
If the connector types on base board and add-on match, it should work.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]

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