On 11/20/2017 03:39 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:46:54PM -0600, Eddie James wrote:
From: "Edward A. James" <eajames@xxxxxxxxxx>
Document the bindings for the P9 OCC device. OCC devices are accessed
through the SBEFIFO.
Signed-off-by: Edward A. James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..79094f5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+Device-tree bindings for P9 On-Chip Controller
+----------------------------------------------
+
+The POWER9 On-Chip Controller is accessed through the SBEFIFO. All OCC nodes
+must be child nodes of SBEFIFO devices (see ibm,p9-sbefifo.txt).
+
+Required properties:
+ - compatible = "ibm,p9-occ";
+
+Optional properties:
+ - reg = <processor index>; : Index for the processor this OCC is on.
reg should be how the parent (SBEFIFO) addresses this device. Would all
of these child devices be a unique processor?
Yes. The "processor" here is indicating which P9 processor in the
system, not whatever processor(s) this kernel is running on. We use this
device tree on the service processor, which can be talking to multiple
P9 chips (over SBEFIFO). This could probably be clarified by saying "P9
chip" or something.
I think a phandle to the cpu node would be more appropriate here.
No phandle available; see above, the processor being referenced is a
separate entity in the system.
Thanks for the quick feedback.
Eddie
+
+Examples:
+
+ occ@1 {
+ compatible = "ibm,p9-occ";
+ reg = <1>;
+ };
--
1.8.3.1
--
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
