On 13-07-21, 08:43, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 4:50 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Allow virtio,mmio nodes to contain device specific subnodes. Since each > > virtio,mmio node can represent a single virtio device, each virtio node > > is allowed to contain a maximum of one device specific subnode. > > Doesn't sound like we need 2 nodes here. Just add I2C devices as child > nodes. You could add a more specific compatible string, but the > protocol is discoverable, so that shouldn't be necessary. I am not sure if it will be a problem, but you can clarify it better. The parent node (virtio,mmio) is used to create a platform device, virtio-mmio, (and so assigned as its of_node) and we create the virtio-device from probe() of this virtio-mmio device. Is it going to be a problem if two devices in kernel use the same of_node ? Are there cases where we would need to get the device pointer from the of_node ? Then we will have two here. > BTW, what's the usecase for these protocols? A standard interface to > firmware controlled I2C, GPIO, etc.? Right now we are looking to control devices in the host machine from guests. That's what Linaro's project stratos is doing. There are other people who want to use this for other kind of remote control stuff, maybe from firmware. > > diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/virtio/virtio_ids.h b/include/dt-bindings/virtio/virtio_ids.h > > new file mode 120000 > > index 000000000000..6e59ba332216 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/include/dt-bindings/virtio/virtio_ids.h > > @@ -0,0 +1 @@ > > +../../uapi/linux/virtio_ids.h > > This will break the devicetree-rebasing tree I think. DT files > shouldn't reference kernel files. We already do this for linux-event-codes.h and so I thought it is the right way of doing it :) Else we can create a new copy, which will be a mess, or use hardcoded values. -- viresh
