From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: meson: Adding hwrev syscon node
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:53:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2394082.bSJ4DLLTEt@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD8Lp47LGUc3-MFpU+3iNjXJL0i4nLTY_49NUxFXeZ2SokDuaQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thursday 18 February 2016 15:27:06 Daniel Drake wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Carlo Caione <carlo@caione.org> wrote:
> >> However, if some or all of the other devices actually are entirely
> >> made up of register ranges within cbus, that would indicate that
> >> cbus itself is not just a collection of random registers but something
> >> that could be considered a bus of itself in hardware, and then
> >> we could represent the other devices as children of this bus.
> >
> > I think that this is exactly the case. We are missing this cbus in the
> > DTS because (for lacking of proper documentation) we are not sure
> > about start / end / size.
>
> Here's a hint from the vendor kernel
> https://github.com/endlessm/linux-meson/blob/master/arch/arm/mach-meson8b/iomapping.c#L87
>
> Having a cbus bus node with child devices does sound like it would
> reflect this particular view of the hardware design. How would we then
> represent the hwrev registers under that?
>
> I am also curious if this is the common practice. We were working with
> Exynos devices before, and even though many of the components are on
> the AXI bus there, there is no AXI bus representation in the DT. But
> now that I go digging, I see other SoCs that do have a DT bus
> representation very similar to what's being described, such as the apb
> and axi busses in mmp2.dtsi. Is one approach preferred over the other
> for new SoC support?
I would always prefer having the dts files describe the hardware as best
as they can.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-19 11:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-17 17:28 [PATCH 0/2] Adding support to show SoC revision in /proc/cpuinfo Romain Perier
2016-02-17 17:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] ARM: meson: Adding support to retrieve serial and SoC revision Romain Perier
2016-02-17 20:34 ` Carlo Caione
2016-02-18 12:20 ` Romain Perier
2016-02-18 12:24 ` Carlo Caione
2016-02-17 17:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: meson: Adding hwrev syscon node Romain Perier
2016-02-17 20:36 ` Carlo Caione
2016-02-18 12:33 ` Romain Perier
2016-02-18 12:43 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-02-18 14:14 ` Carlo Caione
2016-02-18 14:22 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-02-18 21:04 ` Carlo Caione
2016-02-18 21:24 ` Carlo Caione
2016-02-18 21:27 ` Daniel Drake
2016-02-19 11:53 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2016-02-19 12:54 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-02-19 13:25 ` Carlo Caione
2016-02-24 20:42 ` Carlo Caione
2016-02-26 15:34 ` Carlo Caione
2016-02-26 16:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-02-26 16:43 ` Carlo Caione
2016-02-26 17:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-02-26 17:40 ` Carlo Caione
2016-02-17 20:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2394082.bSJ4DLLTEt@wuerfel \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox