On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Matt, > > Thanks for your comments, responses inline. > > On 13/06/18 13:49, Matt Sealey wrote: >> >> Suzuki, >> >> Why not use “unit”? >> >> I believe we had this discussion years ago about numbering serial ports >> and sdhci (i.e. how do you know it’s UART0 or UART1 from just the address? >> Some SoC’s don’t address sequentially *or* in a forward direction) - I >> believe it’s not exactly codified in ePAPR, not am I sure where it may be >> otherwise, but it exists. > > > We have different situation here. We need to know *the port number* as > understood by the > hardware, so that we can enable *the specific* port for a given path. > >> >> I agree with Rob on the slave-mode nonsense, this is an SPI controller >> concept weirdly stuffed into a directed graph which implicitly tells you the >> data direction - it’s a rooted tree (just like DT!). OF graph is not directional. All links must be bi-directional and in fact dtc checks that now. The parent node should know the numbering and direction of each port. > Btw, the "slave-mode" is not a standard DT graph binding. It is not part of > the > generic DT graph binding. In fact the generic bindings stay away from the > direction > aspect and explicitly mentions the same. I really don't like slave-mode nor coresight,hwid. I would prefer to see getting rid of both and splitting ports into "in-ports" and "out-ports" nodes instead of a single "ports" node. Then you don't need any of these properties and reg can be used as the hwid. 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
