On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. Ah, okay. Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
