On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 09:50:42AM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 11:07 -0800, Tao Ren wrote: > > > > This looks generally okay. We should wait for Ben's ack before > > > > applying. > > > > > > Shouldn't we instead have DT fields indicating those values ? > > > > May I ask why we prefer adding dt fields (such as "aspeed,vhub-max-ports" > > and "aspeed,vhub-max-endpoints") instead of assigning these values based > > on aspeed family? For example, is it to allow users to set a smaller > > number of ports/endpoints? > > It's not a strong drive but it makes it more convenient to add support > to newer revisions if the only differences are those numbers. Got it. Thanks for the clarify. Will send out v2 patches after more testing. > > > > > Also we should add a DT representation for the various ID/strings of > > > the hub itself so manufacturers can customize them. > > > > Sure. I will add DT nodes for vendor/product/device IDs/strings. As it's > > not directly related to ast2600-support, shall I handle it in a separate > > patch? Or I can include the patch in this patch series? > > Separate. Thanks ! Will take care of the change once this patch series is accepted. Cheers, Tao > > Cheers, > Ben. > >
