On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 at 11:08, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 6:15 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The Renesas SRAM bindings list only compatible so integrate them into
> > generic SRAM bindings schema.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks for your patch, whcih is now commit 0759b09eadd0d9a1 ("dt-bindings:
> sram: Merge Renesas SRAM bindings into generic") in Rob's for-next branch.
>
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/renesas,smp-sram.txt
> > +++ /dev/null
> > @@ -1,27 +0,0 @@
> > -* Renesas SMP SRAM
> > -
> > -Renesas R-Car Gen2 and RZ/G1 SoCs need a small piece of SRAM for the jump stub
> > -for secondary CPU bringup and CPU hotplug.
> > -This memory is reserved by adding a child node to a "mmio-sram" node, cfr.
> > -Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.txt.
> > -
> > -Required child node properties:
> > - - compatible: Must be "renesas,smp-sram",
> > - - reg: Address and length of the reserved SRAM.
> > - The full physical (bus) address must be aligned to a 256 KiB boundary.
> > -
> > -
> > -Example:
> > -
> > - icram1: sram@e63c0000 {
> > - compatible = "mmio-sram";
> > - reg = <0 0xe63c0000 0 0x1000>;
> > - #address-cells = <1>;
> > - #size-cells = <1>;
> > - ranges = <0 0 0xe63c0000 0x1000>;
> > -
> > - smp-sram@0 {
> > - compatible = "renesas,smp-sram";
> > - reg = <0 0x10>;
> > - };
>
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sram/sram.yaml
>
> > @@ -186,3 +187,17 @@ examples:
> > reg = <0x1ff80 0x8>;
> > };
> > };
> > +
> > + - |
> > + sram@e63c0000 {
> > + compatible = "mmio-sram";
> > + reg = <0xe63c0000 0x1000>;
>
> Is there any specific reason you converted the example from 64-bit to
> 32-bit addressing?
> All Renesas SoCs using this have #address-cells and #size-cells = <2>.
I should mention it in commit msg. The reason is because examples are
compiled inside a {} with address/size cells of 1. Instead of
conversion maybe it would be reasonable to put it inside additional
node adjusting the address/size cells.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
