On 11/07/2016 02:02 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 3:28:01 PM CET Cédric Le Goater wrote: >> On 11/02/2016 02:56 PM, Joel Stanley wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Wednesday 02 November 2016, Cédric Le Goater wrote: >>>>> The Aspeed SoCs have two BT interfaces : one is IPMI compliant and the >>>>> other is H8S/2168 compliant. >>>>> >>>>> The current ipmi/bt-bmc driver implements the IPMI version and we >>>>> should reflect its nature in the compatible node name using >>>>> 'aspeed,ast2400-ibt-bmc' instead of 'aspeed,ast2400-bt-bmc'. The >>>>> latter should be used for a H8S interface driver if it is implemented >>>>> one day. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@xxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> We generally try to avoid changing the compatible strings after the >>>> fact, but it's probably ok in this case. >> >> As the device tree changes are not merged yet, we thought we had some >> more time to fine tune the naming. > > Ok, I see. No problem then. > >>>> I don't understand who decides which of the two interfaces is used: >>>> is it the same register set that can be driven by either one or the >>>> other driver, or do you expect to have two drivers that can both >>>> be active in the same system and talk to different hardware once >>>> you get there? >>> >>> It's the second case. The H8S BT has a different register layout so it >>> would require a different driver. >> >> yes. >> >>> We don't yet have a driver for the other BT device, but there was >>> recent talk of using it as an alternate (non-ipmi channel) between the >>> BMC and the host. Before that discussion I wasn't aware that the H8S >>> BT existed. I suggested we fix this up before it hits a final release. >>> >>> Cédric, do you think ast2400-ibt-bmc or ast2400-ipmi-bt-bmc does a >>> better job of describing the hardware here? >> >> The specs refer to the two interfaces as BT (non IPMI) and iBT (IPMI). >> I think we can keep the same naming. > > Ok > >>> While we're modifying the binding, should we add a compat string for >>> the ast2500? >> >> Well, if the change in this patch is fine for all, may be we can add >> the ast2500 compat string in a followup patch ? > > Sounds good to me. OK. So, how do we proceed with this patch ? Who would include it in its tree ? Thanks, C. -- 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
