On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 03:50:52PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 07/26/2016 10:21 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 07/26/2016 04:03 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 01:14:41PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > > > From: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > The BPMP implements some services which must be represented by separate
> > > > nodes. For example, it can provide access to certain I2C controllers,
> > > > and
> > > > the I2C bindings represent each I2C controller as a device tree node.
> > > > Update the binding to describe how the BPMP supports this.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > .../bindings/firmware/nvidia,tegra186-bpmp.txt | 23
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git
> > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/nvidia,tegra186-bpmp.txt
> > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/nvidia,tegra186-bpmp.txt
> > > > index 9a3864f56955..142d363406f6 100644
> > > > ---
> > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/nvidia,tegra186-bpmp.txt
> > > > +++
> > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/nvidia,tegra186-bpmp.txt
> > > > @@ -38,6 +38,24 @@ implemented by this node:
> > > > - .../reset/reset.txt
> > > > - <dt-bindings/reset/tegra186-reset.h>
> > > >
> > > > +The BPMP implements some services which must be represented by
> > > > separate nodes.
> > > > +For example, it can provide access to certain I2C controllers, and
> > > > the I2C
> > > > +bindings represent each I2C controller as a device tree node. Such
> > > > nodes should
> > > > +be nested directly inside the main BPMP node.
> > > > +
> > > > +Software can determine whether a child node of the BPMP node
> > > > represents a device
> > > > +by checking for a compatible property. Any node with a compatible
> > > > property
> > > > +represents a device that can be instantiated. Nodes without a
> > > > compatible
> > > > +property may be used to provide configuration information regarding
> > > > the BPMP
> > > > +itself, although no such configuration nodes are currently defined
> > > > by this
> > > > +binding.
> > > > +
> > > > +The BPMP firmware defines no single global name-/numbering-space for
> > > > such
> > > > +services. Put another way, the numbering scheme for I2C buses is
> > > > distinct from
> > > > +the numbering scheme for any other service the BPMP may provide
> > > > (e.g. a future
> > > > +hypothetical SPI bus service). As such, child device nodes will have
> > > > no reg
> > > > +property, and the BPMP node will have no #address-cells or
> > > > #size-cells property.
> > >
> > > My understanding is that the I2C bus number is passed as part of the
> > > request to the BPMP firmware. Does that not count as addressing? Could
> > > we not represent that generically using a device tree hierarchy? I'm
> > > thinking something along these lines:
> > >
> > > bpmp {
> > > ...
> > >
> > > services {
> > > i2c {
> > > i2c@0 {
> > > reg = <0>;
> >
> > Technically, that is possible. However, Rob Herring rejected the idea of
> > multiple levels of sub-nodes.
> >
> > Can we please just go with what we have? DT bindings are frankly an
> > obstacle to getting anything done:-(
>
> Thierry, any further thoughts here? I really need to get these DT bindings
> finalized so that I can use them in U-Boot, which is very urgent. Thanks.
If everyone else is fine with these bindings, let's go ahead with them.
Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
