On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:47:31AM +0000, Nava kishore Manne wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd@xxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:21 PM > > To: Nava kishore Manne <navam@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; pawel.moll@xxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; > > ijc+devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Michal Simek > > <michals@xxxxxxxxxx>; Soren Brinkmann <sorenb@xxxxxxxxxx>; > > balbi@xxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Hyun Kwon > > <hyunk@xxxxxxxxxx>; Nava kishore Manne <navam@xxxxxxxxxx>; Radhey > > Shyam Pandey <radheys@xxxxxxxxxx>; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Axi-usb: Add support for 64-bit addressing. > > > > On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 10:51:08 AM CEST Nava kishore Manne wrote: > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/udc-xilinx.txt > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/udc-xilinx.txt > > > index 47b4e39..09df757 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/udc-xilinx.txt > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/udc-xilinx.txt > > > @@ -1,18 +1,23 @@ > > > Xilinx USB2 device controller > > > > > > Required properties: > > > -- compatible : Should be "xlnx,usb2-device-4.00.a" > > > +- compatible : Should be "xlnx,usb2-device-4.00.a" or > > > + "xlnx,usb2-device-5.00" > > > - reg : Physical base address and size of the USB2 > > > device registers map. > > > - interrupts : Should contain single irq line of USB2 device > > > controller > > > - xlnx,has-builtin-dma : if DMA is included > > > +- dma-ranges : Should be as the following > > > + <child-bus-address, parent-bus-address, length> > > > > A USB host should not have any children that are DMA capable, I think, so > > this property doesn't make sense here. It should be part of the parent bus. > > > Will send next version (v4) by removing this property from the DT. > > > > +- xlnx,addrwidth : Should be the dma addressing size in bits(ex: 64 > > bits) > > > > I'm still unconvinced about the property definition here. What are the > > possible options for the IP block? I don't think I ever saw a reply from you to > > my earlier questions. > > > > Sorry Let me clearly explain > > From the IP version 5.0 onwards The IP support both 32-bit and 64-bit addressing. > But the older version of the IP's supports only 32-bit addressing. > > This addrwidth property differentiates the address width for the new IP (I mean 5.0 version on wards) > For older IP it will be always 32-bit. Then I think you should have a simple boolean property for 64-bit configuration. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
