From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/12] MBus DT binding: A new hope Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 13:55:24 -0600 Message-ID: <20130702195524.GA14547@obsidianresearch.com> References: <1372532655-20321-1-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1372532655-20321-1-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Ezequiel Garcia Cc: Andrew Lunn , Jason Cooper , devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, Maen Suleiman , Lior Amsalem , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Sebastian Hesselbarth List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 04:04:03PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > In the current proposal we have now required a 'controller' property > to specify the MBus controller MMIO registers. To us this looks more > appropriate, since the MBus registers are effectively located within > the internal register region, behind the so-called internal-regs window. Interesting, seems reasonable to me. > Personally, I can't see any disadvantage, and the binding looks much > cleaner now. But of course I can be wrong, and I'm open to discussion. > > There's another pending issue. Arnd Bergmann has required to add a > property to specify the available space within the CPU address space > for decoding windows. This property would allow to support fully > dynamic mbus window allocation. I wonder if this range is implied - eg it is address space not covered by the memory node or any mbus ranges? Is there a situation where that is not sufficient? > For now, this property is intentionally missing, and I expect that > it can be added in the future, together with the full-dynamic MBus > implementation. > > @Arnd, @Jason: Given the v4 patchset didn't receive any comments but > wasn't accepted either, I'd like to know which other pending issues > I'm forgetting to address. I took a quick look and it seems to match what was discussed.. Regards, Jason