[PATCH v2] ARM: dts: zynq: Add OCM node

[mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:58:36PM +0000, S?ren Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 12:01PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> > On 02/12/2015 11:54 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:42:47AM +0000, Michal Simek wrote:
> > >> Add OCM node for all zynq boards. OCM location
> > >> can changed but for all current boards this
> > >> is the location where OCM is.`
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
> > >> ---
> > >>
> > >> Changes in v2:
> > >> - Move node to board file suggested by Mark
> > >>
> > >> This patch is done based on discussion here.
> > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/1/396
> > >>
> > >> Mark: I expect you won't like amba bus reference or
> > >> am I wrong?
> > > 
> > > I'm fine with dropping things onto a bus in this way. If we're happy to
> > > do it for other nodes I don't see why busses should be special.
> > 
> > Wonderful. I will give people some time to comment this style.
> 
> Given that the location is discoverable, wouldn't it make sense to let
> 'reg' point to the ctrl/cfg registers in the SLCR and let the driver
> handle the whereabouts of the OCM location? (but I guess this is going
> in circles now, such a proposal was on the table at some point, IIRC).
> But I'd prefer:
> 	memory-controller at 0xfffc0000 { /* the address here would of course not match all configurations */

I'd really prefer that we keep the unit-address and reg consistent.

Given that the address may change on a per-board basis, it simply has to
live in the board file.

However, given that all boards are currently the same it could be
dropped in the SoC file for now, with a comment saying it should be
factored out to boards when the first board with a different address
comes along.

Thanks,
Mark.