Re: Device tree representation of (hotplug) connectors: discussion at ELCE
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> Tue, 16 Sep 2025 15:34:52 +0200
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.devicetree-compiler,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAMuHMdUgnw4Q90a5yzOcK30iBUAQTgUDgAauzSifnngQf7bwqQ@mail.gmail.com> |
Hi Ayush, On Tue, 16 Sept 2025 at 14:22, Ayush Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/16/25 15:44, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > 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. > How would a connector be disabled in such a setup? I guess maybe status > property can be used while applying overlay to check if the connector is > enabled. But maybe that goes outside the scope of fdtoverlay? Why would you want to disable a connector? > Also, I would assume that most such connectors would want to provide > some kind of configfs based API to add/remove addon boards. Yes, we need some way to configure add-on board add/remove, and on which connector(s). 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