From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s.trumtrar@pengutronix.de (Steffen Trumtrar) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 20:02:28 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/5] ARM: zynq: dt: Convert to preprocessor includes In-Reply-To: <20140407171012.GC9952@obsidianresearch.com> References: <1396653256-28397-1-git-send-email-soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> <1396653256-28397-3-git-send-email-soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> <53423E75.3020008@monstr.eu> <53429754.8080105@topic.nl> <534298E7.2020409@monstr.eu> <20140407171012.GC9952@obsidianresearch.com> Message-ID: <20140407180228.GN12170@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi! On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 11:10:12AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 02:24:07PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > > > Device-tree BSP and in 2014.01 there will be new BSP which just > > generate them directly from the Vivado tools which just target your > > reference design. You can connect your custom IP (or Xilinx or 3rd > > party) directly to the GIC which using different IRQ sensitivity > > with whatever register addresses and make no sense to write it by > > hand. > > On our Zynq design here we ended up being unwilling to use platform > generation from Vivado. Basically all our IP was custom, so there was > no win at all to invoking the complexity of the automatic tools. > > Thus we write the DT by hand, and our DT is complex, integrating > peripherals that span two FPGAs. > > I think the in-kernel DT should use the kernel conventions, which > means using #include and the binding constants over magic values. > ACK. If in doubt follow common mainline practice. Although using includes for DT is not necessarily common practice, readability of DTs is really important IMHO. Regards, Steffen -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |