From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ipmi/bt-bmc: change compatible node to 'aspeed, ast2400-ibt-bmc' Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 14:02:01 +0100 Message-ID: <2368736.y6FyG1ESuP@wuerfel> References: <1478073426-3714-1-git-send-email-clg@kaod.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: openipmi-developer-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?C=E9dric?= Le Goater Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Corey Minyard , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Rob Herring , Joel Stanley , openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 3:28:01 PM CET C=E9dric Le Goater wrote: > On 11/02/2016 02:56 PM, Joel Stanley wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> On Wednesday 02 November 2016, C=E9dric Le Goater wrote: > >>> The Aspeed SoCs have two BT interfaces : one is IPMI compliant and the > >>> other is H8S/2168 compliant. > >>> > >>> The current ipmi/bt-bmc driver implements the IPMI version and we > >>> should reflect its nature in the compatible node name using > >>> 'aspeed,ast2400-ibt-bmc' instead of 'aspeed,ast2400-bt-bmc'. The > >>> latter should be used for a H8S interface driver if it is implemented > >>> one day. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: C=E9dric Le Goater > >> > >> We generally try to avoid changing the compatible strings after the > >> fact, but it's probably ok in this case. > = > As the device tree changes are not merged yet, we thought we had some = > more time to fine tune the naming. = Ok, I see. No problem then. > >> I don't understand who decides which of the two interfaces is used: > >> is it the same register set that can be driven by either one or the > >> other driver, or do you expect to have two drivers that can both > >> be active in the same system and talk to different hardware once > >> you get there? > > = > > It's the second case. The H8S BT has a different register layout so it > > would require a different driver. > = > yes. > = > > We don't yet have a driver for the other BT device, but there was > > recent talk of using it as an alternate (non-ipmi channel) between the > > BMC and the host. Before that discussion I wasn't aware that the H8S > > BT existed. I suggested we fix this up before it hits a final release. > > = > > C=E9dric, do you think ast2400-ibt-bmc or ast2400-ipmi-bt-bmc does a > > better job of describing the hardware here? > = > The specs refer to the two interfaces as BT (non IPMI) and iBT (IPMI). = > I think we can keep the same naming. Ok > > While we're modifying the binding, should we add a compat string for > > the ast2500? > = > Well, if the change in this patch is fine for all, may be we can add = > the ast2500 compat string in a followup patch ? Sounds good to me. Arnd ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms. With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE. Training and support from Colfax. Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi