On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 12:57:40 +1030, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > The v2 binding utilises reg and renames some of the v1 properties. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx> > --- > v2: Rename slave-reg to aspeed,lpc-io-reg > > Rob: After our discussion about the name of 'slave-reg' on v1 I've thought > about it some more and have landed on aspeed,lpc-io-reg. In v1 I argued that > the name should be generic and you suggested that if so it should go in a > generic binding document - I've thought about this some more and concluded that > it was hard to pin down exactly where it should be documented if it were > generic (the generic ASPEED LPC binding is one place, but that would suggest > that the property is still ASPEED-specific; maybe some discussion with > Nuvoton might give some insight). > > Regardless, it turns out that the address specification is really > ASPEED-specific in this case: The KCS host interface in the LPC IO space > consists of a data and status register, but the slave controller infers the > address of the second from the address of the first and thus only the address > of the first can be programmed on the BMC-side. ASPEED supply documentation > that maps the LPC-side register layout for given LPC IO base addresses. I think > this is esoteric enough to warrant the aspeed prefix. > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ipmi/aspeed-kcs-bmc.txt | 20 +++++--- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
