From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@freescale.com>
Cc: <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>, <roy.pledge@freescale.com>
Subject: Re: [v2] powerpc/mpc85xx: Add DPAA Ethernet QMan support to the device tree(s)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 19:59:08 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150529005908.GA9235@home.buserror.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1432124975-6096-1-git-send-email-madalin.bucur@freescale.com>
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 03:29:35PM +0300, Madalin Bucur wrote:
> From: Emil Medve <Emilian.Medve@Freescale.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Emil Medve <Emilian.Medve@Freescale.com>
What does "DPAA Ethernet QMan support" mean? Is it ethernet support or
qman support? In any case the subject is too long.
> +/* These stubs are required to alloc qbman drivers to determine what ranges of
> + * resources are available for dynamic allocation, primarily because there are
> + * some legacy "a priori" assumptions in certain subsystems (eg. networking)
> + * that certain resources are reserved for their use. When those drivers (and in
> + * some cases, their corresponding device-tree nodes) are updated to dynamically
> + * allocate their resources, then *all* resources can be managed by the
> + * allocators and there may be no further need to define these stubs.
I thought we were doing full dynamic resource allocation for the upstream
driver and device tree binding.
> + * - Even for memory-backed resources that are software determined (FQIDs), this
> + * information may only be configured and available on the control-plane
> + * partition that manages the device, so in AMP or hypervised scenarios there
> + * may still be need to a way to provide allocation ranges. Ie. for O/S
> + * instances that don't know how many resources are available to hardware, and
> + * possibly even for O/S instances that do know how many are available but
> + * that should not "own" all of them.
Partial device assignment under virtualization needs special handling for
any device; no need to have a big block comment about it here.
> + */
> +
> +&qportals {
> + qman-fqids@0 {
> + compatible = "fsl,fqid-range";
> + fsl,fqid-range = <256 256>;
> + };
> + qman-fqids@1 {
> + compatible = "fsl,fqid-range";
> + fsl,fqid-range = <32768 32768>;
> + };
> + qman-pools@0 {
> + compatible = "fsl,pool-channel-range";
> + fsl,pool-channel-range = <0x21 0xf>;
> + };
> + qman-cgrids@0 {
> + compatible = "fsl,cgrid-range";
> + fsl,cgrid-range = <0 256>;
> + };
> +};
Where is the binding for this stuff?
> +/* The comments in qoriq-dpaa-res1.dtsi apply here too so will not be repeated.
> + * This alternative file is to support p1023 which does not have the same
> + * resource ranges as other SoCs to date. */
Then put "p1023" in the name instead of "res2" (or if the 2 really means
something, explain).
> +/* These stubs are required to alloc qbman drivers to determine what ranges of
> + * resources are available for dynamic allocation, primarily because there are
> + * some legacy "a priori" assumptions in certain subsystems (eg. networking)
> + * that certain resources are reserved for their use. When those drivers (and in
> + * some cases, their corresponding device-tree nodes) are updated to dynamically
> + * allocate their resources, then *all* resources can be managed by the
> + * allocators and there may be no further need to define these stubs.
> + *
> + * A couple of qualifiers to the above statement though:
> + *
> + * - Some resource ranges are hardware-specific, rather than being defined by
> + * software memory allocation choices. Eg. the number of available BPIDs is
> + * baked into silicon and so will probably always need to be expressed in the
> + * device-tree, though in that case it will express all BPIDs, not just those
> + * available for dynamic allocation.
> + *
> + * - Even for memory-backed resources that are software determined (FQIDs), this
> + * information may only be configured and available on the control-plane
> + * partition that manages the device, so in AMP or hypervised scenarios there
> + * may still be need to a way to provide allocation ranges. Ie. for O/S
> + * instances that don't know how many resources are available to hardware, and
> + * possibly even for O/S instances that do know how many are available but
> + * that should not "own" all of them.
Why is all this repeated here?
If explanation is needed about what the nodes are here for, put it in the
binding document.
-Scott
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-29 0:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-20 12:29 [PATCH, v2] powerpc/mpc85xx: Add DPAA Ethernet QMan support to the device tree(s) Madalin Bucur
2015-05-29 0:59 ` Scott Wood [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150529005908.GA9235@home.buserror.net \
--to=scottwood@freescale.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=madalin.bucur@freescale.com \
--cc=roy.pledge@freescale.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).