From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?C=c3=a9dric_Le_Goater?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ipmi/bt-bmc: change compatible node to 'aspeed,ast2400-ibt-bmc' Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 16:52:43 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1478073426-3714-1-git-send-email-clg@kaod.org> <2368736.y6FyG1ESuP@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <2368736.y6FyG1ESuP@wuerfel> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Arnd Bergmann 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 11/07/2016 02:02 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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. OK. So, how do we proceed with this patch ? Who would include it in its = tree ? = Thanks, C.