| Grant Likely | 31134ef | 2011-11-04 11:51:22 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 1 | Linux and the Device Tree | 
 | 2 | ------------------------- | 
 | 3 | The Linux usage model for device tree data | 
 | 4 |  | 
 | 5 | Author: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> | 
 | 6 |  | 
 | 7 | This article describes how Linux uses the device tree.  An overview of | 
 | 8 | the device tree data format can be found on the device tree usage page | 
 | 9 | at devicetree.org[1]. | 
 | 10 |  | 
 | 11 | [1] http://devicetree.org/Device_Tree_Usage | 
 | 12 |  | 
 | 13 | The "Open Firmware Device Tree", or simply Device Tree (DT), is a data | 
 | 14 | structure and language for describing hardware.  More specifically, it | 
 | 15 | is a description of hardware that is readable by an operating system | 
 | 16 | so that the operating system doesn't need to hard code details of the | 
 | 17 | machine. | 
 | 18 |  | 
 | 19 | Structurally, the DT is a tree, or acyclic graph with named nodes, and | 
 | 20 | nodes may have an arbitrary number of named properties encapsulating | 
 | 21 | arbitrary data.  A mechanism also exists to create arbitrary | 
 | 22 | links from one node to another outside of the natural tree structure. | 
 | 23 |  | 
 | 24 | Conceptually, a common set of usage conventions, called 'bindings', | 
 | 25 | is defined for how data should appear in the tree to describe typical | 
 | 26 | hardware characteristics including data busses, interrupt lines, GPIO | 
 | 27 | connections, and peripheral devices. | 
 | 28 |  | 
 | 29 | As much as possible, hardware is described using existing bindings to | 
 | 30 | maximize use of existing support code, but since property and node | 
 | 31 | names are simply text strings, it is easy to extend existing bindings | 
 | 32 | or create new ones by defining new nodes and properties.  Be wary, | 
 | 33 | however, of creating a new binding without first doing some homework | 
 | 34 | about what already exists.  There are currently two different, | 
 | 35 | incompatible, bindings for i2c busses that came about because the new | 
 | 36 | binding was created without first investigating how i2c devices were | 
 | 37 | already being enumerated in existing systems. | 
 | 38 |  | 
 | 39 | 1. History | 
 | 40 | ---------- | 
 | 41 | The DT was originally created by Open Firmware as part of the | 
 | 42 | communication method for passing data from Open Firmware to a client | 
 | 43 | program (like to an operating system).  An operating system used the | 
 | 44 | Device Tree to discover the topology of the hardware at runtime, and | 
 | 45 | thereby support a majority of available hardware without hard coded | 
 | 46 | information (assuming drivers were available for all devices). | 
 | 47 |  | 
 | 48 | Since Open Firmware is commonly used on PowerPC and SPARC platforms, | 
 | 49 | the Linux support for those architectures has for a long time used the | 
 | 50 | Device Tree. | 
 | 51 |  | 
 | 52 | In 2005, when PowerPC Linux began a major cleanup and to merge 32-bit | 
 | 53 | and 64-bit support, the decision was made to require DT support on all | 
 | 54 | powerpc platforms, regardless of whether or not they used Open | 
 | 55 | Firmware.  To do this, a DT representation called the Flattened Device | 
 | 56 | Tree (FDT) was created which could be passed to the kernel as a binary | 
 | 57 | blob without requiring a real Open Firmware implementation.  U-Boot, | 
 | 58 | kexec, and other bootloaders were modified to support both passing a | 
 | 59 | Device Tree Binary (dtb) and to modify a dtb at boot time.  DT was | 
 | 60 | also added to the PowerPC boot wrapper (arch/powerpc/boot/*) so that | 
 | 61 | a dtb could be wrapped up with the kernel image to support booting | 
 | 62 | existing non-DT aware firmware. | 
 | 63 |  | 
 | 64 | Some time later, FDT infrastructure was generalized to be usable by | 
 | 65 | all architectures.  At the time of this writing, 6 mainlined | 
 | 66 | architectures (arm, microblaze, mips, powerpc, sparc, and x86) and 1 | 
 | 67 | out of mainline (nios) have some level of DT support. | 
 | 68 |  | 
 | 69 | 2. Data Model | 
 | 70 | ------------- | 
 | 71 | If you haven't already read the Device Tree Usage[1] page, | 
 | 72 | then go read it now.  It's okay, I'll wait.... | 
 | 73 |  | 
 | 74 | 2.1 High Level View | 
 | 75 | ------------------- | 
 | 76 | The most important thing to understand is that the DT is simply a data | 
 | 77 | structure that describes the hardware.  There is nothing magical about | 
 | 78 | it, and it doesn't magically make all hardware configuration problems | 
 | 79 | go away.  What it does do is provide a language for decoupling the | 
 | 80 | hardware configuration from the board and device driver support in the | 
 | 81 | Linux kernel (or any other operating system for that matter).  Using | 
 | 82 | it allows board and device support to become data driven; to make | 
 | 83 | setup decisions based on data passed into the kernel instead of on | 
 | 84 | per-machine hard coded selections. | 
 | 85 |  | 
 | 86 | Ideally, data driven platform setup should result in less code | 
 | 87 | duplication and make it easier to support a wide range of hardware | 
 | 88 | with a single kernel image. | 
 | 89 |  | 
 | 90 | Linux uses DT data for three major purposes: | 
 | 91 | 1) platform identification, | 
 | 92 | 2) runtime configuration, and | 
 | 93 | 3) device population. | 
 | 94 |  | 
 | 95 | 2.2 Platform Identification | 
 | 96 | --------------------------- | 
 | 97 | First and foremost, the kernel will use data in the DT to identify the | 
 | 98 | specific machine.  In a perfect world, the specific platform shouldn't | 
 | 99 | matter to the kernel because all platform details would be described | 
 | 100 | perfectly by the device tree in a consistent and reliable manner. | 
 | 101 | Hardware is not perfect though, and so the kernel must identify the | 
 | 102 | machine during early boot so that it has the opportunity to run | 
 | 103 | machine-specific fixups. | 
 | 104 |  | 
 | 105 | In the majority of cases, the machine identity is irrelevant, and the | 
 | 106 | kernel will instead select setup code based on the machine's core | 
 | 107 | CPU or SoC.  On ARM for example, setup_arch() in | 
 | 108 | arch/arm/kernel/setup.c will call setup_machine_fdt() in | 
| Robert P. J. Day | b6f4287 | 2013-05-30 07:49:59 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 109 | arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c which searches through the machine_desc | 
| Grant Likely | 31134ef | 2011-11-04 11:51:22 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 110 | table and selects the machine_desc which best matches the device tree | 
 | 111 | data.  It determines the best match by looking at the 'compatible' | 
 | 112 | property in the root device tree node, and comparing it with the | 
| Robert P. J. Day | b6f4287 | 2013-05-30 07:49:59 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 113 | dt_compat list in struct machine_desc (which is defined in | 
 | 114 | arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h if you're curious). | 
| Grant Likely | 31134ef | 2011-11-04 11:51:22 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 115 |  | 
 | 116 | The 'compatible' property contains a sorted list of strings starting | 
 | 117 | with the exact name of the machine, followed by an optional list of | 
 | 118 | boards it is compatible with sorted from most compatible to least.  For | 
 | 119 | example, the root compatible properties for the TI BeagleBoard and its | 
| Robert P. J. Day | b6f4287 | 2013-05-30 07:49:59 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 120 | successor, the BeagleBoard xM board might look like, respectively: | 
| Grant Likely | 31134ef | 2011-11-04 11:51:22 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 121 |  | 
 | 122 | 	compatible = "ti,omap3-beagleboard", "ti,omap3450", "ti,omap3"; | 
 | 123 | 	compatible = "ti,omap3-beagleboard-xm", "ti,omap3450", "ti,omap3"; | 
 | 124 |  | 
 | 125 | Where "ti,omap3-beagleboard-xm" specifies the exact model, it also | 
 | 126 | claims that it compatible with the OMAP 3450 SoC, and the omap3 family | 
 | 127 | of SoCs in general.  You'll notice that the list is sorted from most | 
 | 128 | specific (exact board) to least specific (SoC family). | 
 | 129 |  | 
 | 130 | Astute readers might point out that the Beagle xM could also claim | 
 | 131 | compatibility with the original Beagle board.  However, one should be | 
 | 132 | cautioned about doing so at the board level since there is typically a | 
 | 133 | high level of change from one board to another, even within the same | 
 | 134 | product line, and it is hard to nail down exactly what is meant when one | 
 | 135 | board claims to be compatible with another.  For the top level, it is | 
 | 136 | better to err on the side of caution and not claim one board is | 
 | 137 | compatible with another.  The notable exception would be when one | 
 | 138 | board is a carrier for another, such as a CPU module attached to a | 
 | 139 | carrier board. | 
 | 140 |  | 
 | 141 | One more note on compatible values.  Any string used in a compatible | 
 | 142 | property must be documented as to what it indicates.  Add | 
 | 143 | documentation for compatible strings in Documentation/devicetree/bindings. | 
 | 144 |  | 
 | 145 | Again on ARM, for each machine_desc, the kernel looks to see if | 
 | 146 | any of the dt_compat list entries appear in the compatible property. | 
 | 147 | If one does, then that machine_desc is a candidate for driving the | 
 | 148 | machine.  After searching the entire table of machine_descs, | 
 | 149 | setup_machine_fdt() returns the 'most compatible' machine_desc based | 
 | 150 | on which entry in the compatible property each machine_desc matches | 
 | 151 | against.  If no matching machine_desc is found, then it returns NULL. | 
 | 152 |  | 
 | 153 | The reasoning behind this scheme is the observation that in the majority | 
 | 154 | of cases, a single machine_desc can support a large number of boards | 
 | 155 | if they all use the same SoC, or same family of SoCs.  However, | 
 | 156 | invariably there will be some exceptions where a specific board will | 
 | 157 | require special setup code that is not useful in the generic case. | 
 | 158 | Special cases could be handled by explicitly checking for the | 
 | 159 | troublesome board(s) in generic setup code, but doing so very quickly | 
 | 160 | becomes ugly and/or unmaintainable if it is more than just a couple of | 
 | 161 | cases. | 
 | 162 |  | 
 | 163 | Instead, the compatible list allows a generic machine_desc to provide | 
 | 164 | support for a wide common set of boards by specifying "less | 
| Robert P. J. Day | b6f4287 | 2013-05-30 07:49:59 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 165 | compatible" values in the dt_compat list.  In the example above, | 
| Grant Likely | 31134ef | 2011-11-04 11:51:22 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 166 | generic board support can claim compatibility with "ti,omap3" or | 
 | 167 | "ti,omap3450".  If a bug was discovered on the original beagleboard | 
 | 168 | that required special workaround code during early boot, then a new | 
 | 169 | machine_desc could be added which implements the workarounds and only | 
 | 170 | matches on "ti,omap3-beagleboard". | 
 | 171 |  | 
 | 172 | PowerPC uses a slightly different scheme where it calls the .probe() | 
 | 173 | hook from each machine_desc, and the first one returning TRUE is used. | 
 | 174 | However, this approach does not take into account the priority of the | 
 | 175 | compatible list, and probably should be avoided for new architecture | 
 | 176 | support. | 
 | 177 |  | 
 | 178 | 2.3 Runtime configuration | 
 | 179 | ------------------------- | 
 | 180 | In most cases, a DT will be the sole method of communicating data from | 
 | 181 | firmware to the kernel, so also gets used to pass in runtime and | 
 | 182 | configuration data like the kernel parameters string and the location | 
 | 183 | of an initrd image. | 
 | 184 |  | 
 | 185 | Most of this data is contained in the /chosen node, and when booting | 
 | 186 | Linux it will look something like this: | 
 | 187 |  | 
 | 188 | 	chosen { | 
 | 189 | 		bootargs = "console=ttyS0,115200 loglevel=8"; | 
 | 190 | 		initrd-start = <0xc8000000>; | 
 | 191 | 		initrd-end = <0xc8200000>; | 
 | 192 | 	}; | 
 | 193 |  | 
 | 194 | The bootargs property contains the kernel arguments, and the initrd-* | 
| Uwe Kleine-König | a2b9ea7 | 2013-04-25 14:27:57 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 195 | properties define the address and size of an initrd blob.  Note that | 
 | 196 | initrd-end is the first address after the initrd image, so this doesn't | 
 | 197 | match the usual semantic of struct resource.  The chosen node may also | 
 | 198 | optionally contain an arbitrary number of additional properties for | 
 | 199 | platform-specific configuration data. | 
| Grant Likely | 31134ef | 2011-11-04 11:51:22 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 200 |  | 
 | 201 | During early boot, the architecture setup code calls of_scan_flat_dt() | 
 | 202 | several times with different helper callbacks to parse device tree | 
 | 203 | data before paging is setup.  The of_scan_flat_dt() code scans through | 
 | 204 | the device tree and uses the helpers to extract information required | 
 | 205 | during early boot.  Typically the early_init_dt_scan_chosen() helper | 
 | 206 | is used to parse the chosen node including kernel parameters, | 
 | 207 | early_init_dt_scan_root() to initialize the DT address space model, | 
 | 208 | and early_init_dt_scan_memory() to determine the size and | 
 | 209 | location of usable RAM. | 
 | 210 |  | 
 | 211 | On ARM, the function setup_machine_fdt() is responsible for early | 
 | 212 | scanning of the device tree after selecting the correct machine_desc | 
 | 213 | that supports the board. | 
 | 214 |  | 
 | 215 | 2.4 Device population | 
 | 216 | --------------------- | 
 | 217 | After the board has been identified, and after the early configuration data | 
 | 218 | has been parsed, then kernel initialization can proceed in the normal | 
 | 219 | way.  At some point in this process, unflatten_device_tree() is called | 
 | 220 | to convert the data into a more efficient runtime representation. | 
 | 221 | This is also when machine-specific setup hooks will get called, like | 
 | 222 | the machine_desc .init_early(), .init_irq() and .init_machine() hooks | 
 | 223 | on ARM.  The remainder of this section uses examples from the ARM | 
 | 224 | implementation, but all architectures will do pretty much the same | 
 | 225 | thing when using a DT. | 
 | 226 |  | 
 | 227 | As can be guessed by the names, .init_early() is used for any machine- | 
 | 228 | specific setup that needs to be executed early in the boot process, | 
 | 229 | and .init_irq() is used to set up interrupt handling.  Using a DT | 
 | 230 | doesn't materially change the behaviour of either of these functions. | 
 | 231 | If a DT is provided, then both .init_early() and .init_irq() are able | 
 | 232 | to call any of the DT query functions (of_* in include/linux/of*.h) to | 
 | 233 | get additional data about the platform. | 
 | 234 |  | 
 | 235 | The most interesting hook in the DT context is .init_machine() which | 
 | 236 | is primarily responsible for populating the Linux device model with | 
 | 237 | data about the platform.  Historically this has been implemented on | 
 | 238 | embedded platforms by defining a set of static clock structures, | 
 | 239 | platform_devices, and other data in the board support .c file, and | 
 | 240 | registering it en-masse in .init_machine().  When DT is used, then | 
 | 241 | instead of hard coding static devices for each platform, the list of | 
 | 242 | devices can be obtained by parsing the DT, and allocating device | 
 | 243 | structures dynamically. | 
 | 244 |  | 
 | 245 | The simplest case is when .init_machine() is only responsible for | 
 | 246 | registering a block of platform_devices.  A platform_device is a concept | 
 | 247 | used by Linux for memory or I/O mapped devices which cannot be detected | 
 | 248 | by hardware, and for 'composite' or 'virtual' devices (more on those | 
 | 249 | later).  While there is no 'platform device' terminology for the DT, | 
 | 250 | platform devices roughly correspond to device nodes at the root of the | 
 | 251 | tree and children of simple memory mapped bus nodes. | 
 | 252 |  | 
 | 253 | About now is a good time to lay out an example.  Here is part of the | 
 | 254 | device tree for the NVIDIA Tegra board. | 
 | 255 |  | 
 | 256 | /{ | 
 | 257 | 	compatible = "nvidia,harmony", "nvidia,tegra20"; | 
 | 258 | 	#address-cells = <1>; | 
 | 259 | 	#size-cells = <1>; | 
 | 260 | 	interrupt-parent = <&intc>; | 
 | 261 |  | 
 | 262 | 	chosen { }; | 
 | 263 | 	aliases { }; | 
 | 264 |  | 
 | 265 | 	memory { | 
 | 266 | 		device_type = "memory"; | 
 | 267 | 		reg = <0x00000000 0x40000000>; | 
 | 268 | 	}; | 
 | 269 |  | 
 | 270 | 	soc { | 
 | 271 | 		compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-soc", "simple-bus"; | 
 | 272 | 		#address-cells = <1>; | 
 | 273 | 		#size-cells = <1>; | 
 | 274 | 		ranges; | 
 | 275 |  | 
 | 276 | 		intc: interrupt-controller@50041000 { | 
 | 277 | 			compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-gic"; | 
 | 278 | 			interrupt-controller; | 
 | 279 | 			#interrupt-cells = <1>; | 
 | 280 | 			reg = <0x50041000 0x1000>, < 0x50040100 0x0100 >; | 
 | 281 | 		}; | 
 | 282 |  | 
 | 283 | 		serial@70006300 { | 
 | 284 | 			compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-uart"; | 
 | 285 | 			reg = <0x70006300 0x100>; | 
 | 286 | 			interrupts = <122>; | 
 | 287 | 		}; | 
 | 288 |  | 
 | 289 | 		i2s1: i2s@70002800 { | 
 | 290 | 			compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-i2s"; | 
 | 291 | 			reg = <0x70002800 0x100>; | 
 | 292 | 			interrupts = <77>; | 
 | 293 | 			codec = <&wm8903>; | 
 | 294 | 		}; | 
 | 295 |  | 
 | 296 | 		i2c@7000c000 { | 
 | 297 | 			compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-i2c"; | 
 | 298 | 			#address-cells = <1>; | 
 | 299 | 			#size-cells = <0>; | 
 | 300 | 			reg = <0x7000c000 0x100>; | 
 | 301 | 			interrupts = <70>; | 
 | 302 |  | 
 | 303 | 			wm8903: codec@1a { | 
 | 304 | 				compatible = "wlf,wm8903"; | 
 | 305 | 				reg = <0x1a>; | 
 | 306 | 				interrupts = <347>; | 
 | 307 | 			}; | 
 | 308 | 		}; | 
 | 309 | 	}; | 
 | 310 |  | 
 | 311 | 	sound { | 
 | 312 | 		compatible = "nvidia,harmony-sound"; | 
 | 313 | 		i2s-controller = <&i2s1>; | 
 | 314 | 		i2s-codec = <&wm8903>; | 
 | 315 | 	}; | 
 | 316 | }; | 
 | 317 |  | 
| Richard Genoud | 5d78110 | 2012-06-29 12:44:46 +0200 | [diff] [blame] | 318 | At .init_machine() time, Tegra board support code will need to look at | 
| Grant Likely | 31134ef | 2011-11-04 11:51:22 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 319 | this DT and decide which nodes to create platform_devices for. | 
 | 320 | However, looking at the tree, it is not immediately obvious what kind | 
 | 321 | of device each node represents, or even if a node represents a device | 
 | 322 | at all.  The /chosen, /aliases, and /memory nodes are informational | 
 | 323 | nodes that don't describe devices (although arguably memory could be | 
 | 324 | considered a device).  The children of the /soc node are memory mapped | 
 | 325 | devices, but the codec@1a is an i2c device, and the sound node | 
 | 326 | represents not a device, but rather how other devices are connected | 
 | 327 | together to create the audio subsystem.  I know what each device is | 
 | 328 | because I'm familiar with the board design, but how does the kernel | 
 | 329 | know what to do with each node? | 
 | 330 |  | 
 | 331 | The trick is that the kernel starts at the root of the tree and looks | 
 | 332 | for nodes that have a 'compatible' property.  First, it is generally | 
 | 333 | assumed that any node with a 'compatible' property represents a device | 
 | 334 | of some kind, and second, it can be assumed that any node at the root | 
 | 335 | of the tree is either directly attached to the processor bus, or is a | 
 | 336 | miscellaneous system device that cannot be described any other way. | 
 | 337 | For each of these nodes, Linux allocates and registers a | 
 | 338 | platform_device, which in turn may get bound to a platform_driver. | 
 | 339 |  | 
 | 340 | Why is using a platform_device for these nodes a safe assumption? | 
 | 341 | Well, for the way that Linux models devices, just about all bus_types | 
 | 342 | assume that its devices are children of a bus controller.  For | 
 | 343 | example, each i2c_client is a child of an i2c_master.  Each spi_device | 
 | 344 | is a child of an SPI bus.  Similarly for USB, PCI, MDIO, etc.  The | 
 | 345 | same hierarchy is also found in the DT, where I2C device nodes only | 
 | 346 | ever appear as children of an I2C bus node.  Ditto for SPI, MDIO, USB, | 
 | 347 | etc.  The only devices which do not require a specific type of parent | 
 | 348 | device are platform_devices (and amba_devices, but more on that | 
 | 349 | later), which will happily live at the base of the Linux /sys/devices | 
 | 350 | tree.  Therefore, if a DT node is at the root of the tree, then it | 
 | 351 | really probably is best registered as a platform_device. | 
 | 352 |  | 
| Chaiken, Alison | 155dd0c | 2012-11-15 23:32:51 +0000 | [diff] [blame] | 353 | Linux board support code calls of_platform_populate(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL) | 
| Grant Likely | 31134ef | 2011-11-04 11:51:22 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 354 | to kick off discovery of devices at the root of the tree.  The | 
 | 355 | parameters are all NULL because when starting from the root of the | 
 | 356 | tree, there is no need to provide a starting node (the first NULL), a | 
 | 357 | parent struct device (the last NULL), and we're not using a match | 
 | 358 | table (yet).  For a board that only needs to register devices, | 
 | 359 | .init_machine() can be completely empty except for the | 
 | 360 | of_platform_populate() call. | 
 | 361 |  | 
 | 362 | In the Tegra example, this accounts for the /soc and /sound nodes, but | 
 | 363 | what about the children of the SoC node?  Shouldn't they be registered | 
 | 364 | as platform devices too?  For Linux DT support, the generic behaviour | 
 | 365 | is for child devices to be registered by the parent's device driver at | 
 | 366 | driver .probe() time.  So, an i2c bus device driver will register a | 
 | 367 | i2c_client for each child node, an SPI bus driver will register | 
 | 368 | its spi_device children, and similarly for other bus_types. | 
 | 369 | According to that model, a driver could be written that binds to the | 
 | 370 | SoC node and simply registers platform_devices for each of its | 
 | 371 | children.  The board support code would allocate and register an SoC | 
 | 372 | device, a (theoretical) SoC device driver could bind to the SoC device, | 
 | 373 | and register platform_devices for /soc/interrupt-controller, /soc/serial, | 
 | 374 | /soc/i2s, and /soc/i2c in its .probe() hook.  Easy, right? | 
 | 375 |  | 
 | 376 | Actually, it turns out that registering children of some | 
 | 377 | platform_devices as more platform_devices is a common pattern, and the | 
 | 378 | device tree support code reflects that and makes the above example | 
 | 379 | simpler.  The second argument to of_platform_populate() is an | 
 | 380 | of_device_id table, and any node that matches an entry in that table | 
| Robert P. J. Day | b6f4287 | 2013-05-30 07:49:59 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 381 | will also get its child nodes registered.  In the Tegra case, the code | 
| Grant Likely | 31134ef | 2011-11-04 11:51:22 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 382 | can look something like this: | 
 | 383 |  | 
 | 384 | static void __init harmony_init_machine(void) | 
 | 385 | { | 
 | 386 | 	/* ... */ | 
 | 387 | 	of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL); | 
 | 388 | } | 
 | 389 |  | 
 | 390 | "simple-bus" is defined in the ePAPR 1.0 specification as a property | 
 | 391 | meaning a simple memory mapped bus, so the of_platform_populate() code | 
 | 392 | could be written to just assume simple-bus compatible nodes will | 
 | 393 | always be traversed.  However, we pass it in as an argument so that | 
 | 394 | board support code can always override the default behaviour. | 
 | 395 |  | 
 | 396 | [Need to add discussion of adding i2c/spi/etc child devices] | 
 | 397 |  | 
 | 398 | Appendix A: AMBA devices | 
 | 399 | ------------------------ | 
 | 400 |  | 
 | 401 | ARM Primecells are a certain kind of device attached to the ARM AMBA | 
 | 402 | bus which include some support for hardware detection and power | 
 | 403 | management.  In Linux, struct amba_device and the amba_bus_type is | 
 | 404 | used to represent Primecell devices.  However, the fiddly bit is that | 
 | 405 | not all devices on an AMBA bus are Primecells, and for Linux it is | 
 | 406 | typical for both amba_device and platform_device instances to be | 
 | 407 | siblings of the same bus segment. | 
 | 408 |  | 
 | 409 | When using the DT, this creates problems for of_platform_populate() | 
 | 410 | because it must decide whether to register each node as either a | 
 | 411 | platform_device or an amba_device.  This unfortunately complicates the | 
 | 412 | device creation model a little bit, but the solution turns out not to | 
 | 413 | be too invasive.  If a node is compatible with "arm,amba-primecell", then | 
 | 414 | of_platform_populate() will register it as an amba_device instead of a | 
 | 415 | platform_device. |