On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 09:56:33AM +0200, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-09-10 at 13:16 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 04:32:32PM -0500, Eddie James wrote:
> > > Document the bindings for the FSI-attached POWER9 On-Chip Controller.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 15 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..46372f6
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> > > +Device-tree bindings for FSI-attached POWER9 On-Chip Controller (OCC)
> > > +---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > +
> > > +This is the binding for the P9 On-Chip Controller accessed over FSI from a
> > > +service processor. See fsi.txt for details on bindings for FSI slave and CFAM
> > > +nodes.
> > > +
> > > +Required properties:
> > > + - compatible = "ibm,p9-occ"
> > > +
> > > +Examples:
> > > +
> > > + occ {
> >
> > FSI slave devices are supposed to have an address according to the
> > binding doc.
>
> This isn't the FSI device per-se actually. This is a node below the
> "sbefifo" FSI device. The SBE fifo is the mechanism by which we
> communicate with the OCC. The sbefifo doesn't really define a "bus",
> it's mostly used from userspace directly via /dev/sbefifo* to perform
> various tasks in the chip, but it happens to also provide the in-kernel
> transport for the OCC commands.
>
What is the conclusion here ? Is it ok as-is, or does it have to be changed ?
Thanks,
Guenter
> Cheers,
> Ben.
>
> > > + compatible = "ibm,p9-occ";
> > > + };
> > > --
> > > 1.8.3.1
> > >
>
