From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2B8F1A0006 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 05:10:00 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bbn0105.outbound.protection.outlook.com [157.56.111.105]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4A04140077 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 05:09:58 +1100 (AEDT) Message-ID: <1414519788.23458.85.camel@snotra.buserror.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] dt/bindings: Introduce the FSL QorIQ DPAA BMan portal(s) From: Scott Wood To: Emil Medve Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:09:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: <54480DE6.4090604@Freescale.com> References: <1413986972-621-1-git-send-email-Emilian.Medve@Freescale.com> <1413986972-621-2-git-send-email-Emilian.Medve@Freescale.com> <20141022142931.GA4010@leverpostej> <54480DE6.4090604@Freescale.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Mark Rutland , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Pawel Moll , "ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk" , "Geoff.Thorpe@freescale.com" , "corbet@lwn.net" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "galak@codeaurora.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 15:04 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: > Hello Mark, > > > Thanks for having a look at this > > On 10/22/2014 09:29 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > I'd feel rather uncomfortable accepting a > > binding that we already believe to be insufficient to describe the > > hardware. > > > > What do you expect to change? > > Related bindings seem incomplete. As such, the PAMU binding (pamu.txt) > covers incompletely a dynamic LIODN assignment/programming model. The > current driver uses a static assignment scheme that the binding needs to > include. I also suspect that once the driver starts supporting the > dynamic LIODN assignment/programming we might find some wrinkles How is this different from any of the other QorIQ bindings that have been merged without such a disclaimer? The static LIODN model is already there, even if documentation is missing, and should continue to be supported even if we eventually implement a dynamic LIODN model. > >> + > >> + bman-portals@ff4000000 { > >> + #address-cells = <1>; > >> + #size-cells = <1>; > >> + compatible = "simple-bus"; > >> + ranges = <0 0xf 0xf4000000 0x200000>; > >> + > >> + bman-portal@0 { > >> + compatible = "fsl,bman-portal-1.0.0", "fsl,bman-portal"; > >> + reg = <0x0 0x4000 0x100000 0x1000>; > > > > It would be easier to read is each entry had its own set of brackets. > > Initially this looked to me like a single 64-bit address/size pair. > > Something like <>, <>? It doesn't seem widely used but I agree is more > readable. I can include it in the the next spin The older PPC device trees haven't used it much but I think it's pretty common in the newer ARM trees. -Scott