On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 16:40 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: > Hello Scott, > > > On 10/28/2014 01:08 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 09:36 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > >> On Oct 22, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Emil Medve <Emilian.Medve@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> The Buffer Manager is part of the Data-Path Acceleration Architecture (DPAA). > >>> BMan supports hardware allocation and deallocation of buffers belonging to > >>> pools originally created by software with configurable depletion thresholds. > >>> This binding covers the CCSR space programming model > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Emil Medve <Emilian.Medve@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Change-Id: I3ec479bfb3c91951e96902f091f5d7d2adbef3b2 > >>> --- > >>> .../devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/bman.txt | 98 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 1 file changed, 98 insertions(+) > >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/bman.txt > >> > >> Should these really be in bindings/powerpc/fsl, aren’t you guys using this on ARM SoCs as well? > > > > The hardware on the ARM SoCs is different enough that I'm not sure the > > same binding will cover it. That said, putting things under <arch> > > should be a last resort if nowhere else fits. > > OTC started ported the driver to the the ARM SoC and the feedback has > been that the driver needed minimal changes. The IOMMU has been the only > area of concern, and a small change to the binding has been suggested Do we need something in the binding to indicate device endianness? If this binding is going to continue to be relevant to future DPAA generations, I think we really ought to deal with the possibility that there is more than one datapath instance, by having phandles and/or a parent container to connect the related components. -Scott -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
