From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thierry.reding@gmail.com (Thierry Reding) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:48:31 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: allow child nodes inside the Tegra BPMP In-Reply-To: <6db4ff47-974b-94ac-3739-e630b6d38c0e@wwwdotorg.org> References: <20160719191442.15439-1-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <20160719191442.15439-2-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <20160726100302.GE2433@ulmo.ba.sec> <6db4ff47-974b-94ac-3739-e630b6d38c0e@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <20160729134831.GA3864@ulmo.ba.sec> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 03:24:22PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 07/28/2016 01:07 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: > > > On 07/26/2016 04:03 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 01:14:41PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From: Stephen Warren > > > > > > > > > > The BPMP implements some services which must be represented by separate > > > > > nodes. For example, it can provide access to certain I2C controllers, and > > > > > the I2C bindings represent each I2C controller as a device tree node. > > > > > Update the binding to describe how the BPMP supports this. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren > > > > > --- > > > > > .../bindings/firmware/nvidia,tegra186-bpmp.txt | 23 > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/nvidia,tegra186-bpmp.txt > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/nvidia,tegra186-bpmp.txt > > > > > index 9a3864f56955..142d363406f6 100644 > > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/nvidia,tegra186-bpmp.txt > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/nvidia,tegra186-bpmp.txt > > > > > @@ -38,6 +38,24 @@ implemented by this node: > > > > > - .../reset/reset.txt > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > +The BPMP implements some services which must be represented by separate > > > > > nodes. > > > > > +For example, it can provide access to certain I2C controllers, and the > > > > > I2C > > > > > +bindings represent each I2C controller as a device tree node. Such nodes > > > > > should > > > > > +be nested directly inside the main BPMP node. > > > > > + > > > > > +Software can determine whether a child node of the BPMP node represents > > > > > a device > > > > > +by checking for a compatible property. Any node with a compatible > > > > > property > > > > > +represents a device that can be instantiated. Nodes without a compatible > > > > > +property may be used to provide configuration information regarding the > > > > > BPMP > > > > > +itself, although no such configuration nodes are currently defined by > > > > > this > > > > > +binding. > > > > > + > > > > > +The BPMP firmware defines no single global name-/numbering-space for > > > > > such > > > > > +services. Put another way, the numbering scheme for I2C buses is > > > > > distinct from > > > > > +the numbering scheme for any other service the BPMP may provide (e.g. a > > > > > future > > > > > +hypothetical SPI bus service). As such, child device nodes will have no > > > > > reg > > > > > +property, and the BPMP node will have no #address-cells or #size-cells > > > > > property. > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that the I2C bus number is passed as part of the > > > > request to the BPMP firmware. Does that not count as addressing? Could > > > > we not represent that generically using a device tree hierarchy? I'm > > > > thinking something along these lines: > > > > > > > > bpmp { > > > > ... > > > > > > > > services { > > > > i2c { > > > > i2c at 0 { > > > > reg = <0>; > > > > > > > > > Technically, that is possible. However, Rob Herring rejected the idea of > > > multiple levels of sub-nodes. > > > > I think I questioned the need, not rejected. What about the above, but > > remove serivces level: > > > > bpmp { > > ... > > > > i2c { > > i2c at 0 { > > reg = <0>; > > Sigh. Can you please talk to Thierry and work out what the binding would be > (perhaps on IRC to expedite things?) and I'll just implement whatever you > two agree upon. I don't really care much what the binding looks like any > more; I just need something that will pass review. Thanks. Like I said, I'm fine going with what you proposed. I'm sure by now the BPMP has long been frozen and if the proposed binding works fine that's good. No need to over-engineer. If we ever need more than one I2C (or expose other busses) I'm sure we can find a way to switch to something like the above later on. Like I said, that's very unlikely to happen on Tegra186, so we'll have a new compatible string (and hence an easy way to differentiate between these bindings) anyway. Thierry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: not available URL: