From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from rs35.luxsci.com (rs35.luxsci.com [66.216.127.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76ED1B7CA6 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 05:58:33 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <4BAD03E2.9020207@firmworks.com> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:58:42 -1000 From: Mitch Bradley MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/fsl: add device tree binding for QE firmware References: <1269380552-10418-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com> <65327.84.105.60.153.1269481760.squirrel@gate.crashing.org> <4BAB7E67.6040707@freescale.com> <4BAB816F.5060405@firmworks.com> <4BAB9120.1060600@freescale.com> <4BACD011.5050609@freescale.com> <4BACFF7B.3010002@freescale.com> <4BAD018B.6010309@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: <4BAD018B.6010309@freescale.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: Scott Wood , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Timur Tabi wrote: > Grant Likely wrote: > > >> Nah. That looks totally fine. Not having the firmware under a qe >> node would look bad to me. >> > > You don't think it weird to have one QE node reference data from another QE node, or that the DTS implies that the firmware belongs to one QE more than it belongs to the other? > It is certainly not symmetric. Putting the firmware blob somewhere completely unrelated to either node maintains the symmetry between the two qe nodes, but only weakly captures the relationship between the firmware blob and the qe nodes. It is then necessary to invoke a strong naming convention for the firmware blob, because you don't have the hierarchy to do the name space disambiguation for you. As I see it, the three possibilities, and their disadvantages, are: a) Firmware blob in some random place - requires strong naming of either firmware blob property or node containing it. b) Firmware blob within first qe node - asymmetric. c) Firmware blob in new parent of both qe nodes - requires introduction of otherwise-unneeded hierarchy level. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mitch Bradley Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/fsl: add device tree binding for QE firmware Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:58:42 -1000 Message-ID: <4BAD03E2.9020207@firmworks.com> References: <1269380552-10418-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com> <65327.84.105.60.153.1269481760.squirrel@gate.crashing.org> <4BAB7E67.6040707@freescale.com> <4BAB816F.5060405@firmworks.com> <4BAB9120.1060600@freescale.com> <4BACD011.5050609@freescale.com> <4BACFF7B.3010002@freescale.com> <4BAD018B.6010309@freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4BAD018B.6010309-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Timur Tabi Cc: Scott Wood , devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linuxppc-dev-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Timur Tabi wrote: > Grant Likely wrote: > > >> Nah. That looks totally fine. Not having the firmware under a qe >> node would look bad to me. >> > > You don't think it weird to have one QE node reference data from another QE node, or that the DTS implies that the firmware belongs to one QE more than it belongs to the other? > It is certainly not symmetric. Putting the firmware blob somewhere completely unrelated to either node maintains the symmetry between the two qe nodes, but only weakly captures the relationship between the firmware blob and the qe nodes. It is then necessary to invoke a strong naming convention for the firmware blob, because you don't have the hierarchy to do the name space disambiguation for you. As I see it, the three possibilities, and their disadvantages, are: a) Firmware blob in some random place - requires strong naming of either firmware blob property or node containing it. b) Firmware blob within first qe node - asymmetric. c) Firmware blob in new parent of both qe nodes - requires introduction of otherwise-unneeded hierarchy level.