From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 18:01:01 -0600 Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: ipmi: aspeed: Introduce a v2 binding for KCS In-Reply-To: <8aec8994bbe1186d257b0a712e13cf914c5ebe35.1576462051.git-series.andrew@aj.id.au> References: <8aec8994bbe1186d257b0a712e13cf914c5ebe35.1576462051.git-series.andrew@aj.id.au> Message-ID: <20191220000101.GA16104@bogus> List-Id: To: linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 12:57:40 +1030, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > The v2 binding utilises reg and renames some of the v1 properties. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery > --- > v2: Rename slave-reg to aspeed,lpc-io-reg > > Rob: After our discussion about the name of 'slave-reg' on v1 I've thought > about it some more and have landed on aspeed,lpc-io-reg. In v1 I argued that > the name should be generic and you suggested that if so it should go in a > generic binding document - I've thought about this some more and concluded that > it was hard to pin down exactly where it should be documented if it were > generic (the generic ASPEED LPC binding is one place, but that would suggest > that the property is still ASPEED-specific; maybe some discussion with > Nuvoton might give some insight). > > Regardless, it turns out that the address specification is really > ASPEED-specific in this case: The KCS host interface in the LPC IO space > consists of a data and status register, but the slave controller infers the > address of the second from the address of the first and thus only the address > of the first can be programmed on the BMC-side. ASPEED supply documentation > that maps the LPC-side register layout for given LPC IO base addresses. I think > this is esoteric enough to warrant the aspeed prefix. > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ipmi/aspeed-kcs-bmc.txt | 20 +++++--- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring