On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. I think I questioned the need, not rejected. What about the above, but remove serivces level: bpmp { ... i2c { i2c@0 { reg = <0>; Rob -- 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