Hello Scott, On 10/30/2014 04:26 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 11:45 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: >> Hello Scott, >> >> >> On 10/30/2014 11:29 AM, Scott Wood wrote: >>> On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 11:19 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: >>>> Hello Scott, >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/30/2014 09:51 AM, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 23:32 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: >>>>>> Hello Scott, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/29/2014 05:16 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>>>> 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? >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said, I didn't have enough exposure to the ARM SoC so I can't >>>>>> answer that >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm unsure how relevant this will be going forward. In LS2 B/QMan is >>>>>> abstracted/hidden away behind the MC (firmware). >>>>> >>>>> This is why I was wondering whether the binding would be at all the >>>>> same... >>>>> >>>>>> I wouldn't over-engineer this without a clear picture of what multiple >>>>>> data-paths per SoC even means at this point >>>>> >>>>> I don't think it's over-engineering. Assuming only one instance of >>>>> something is generally sloppy engineering. Linux doesn't need to >>>>> actually pay attention to it until and unless it becomes necessary, but >>>>> it's good to have the information in the device tree up front. >>>> >>>> I asked around and the "multiple data-path SoC" seems to be at this >>>> point a speculation. It seems unclear how would it work, what >>>> requirements/problems it would address/solve, what programming interface >>>> it would have. I'm not sure what do you suggest we do >>>> >>>> In order to reduce the sloppiness of this binding. I'll add a >>>> memory-region phandle to connect each B/QMan node to their >>>> reserved-memory node >>> >>> Thanks, that's the sort of thing I was looking for. There should also >>> be a connection from the portals to the relevant bqman node >> >> Nothing in the current programing model requires a portal to know its >> B/QMan "parent". Should I add a phandle of sorts anyway? > > Well, you at least have the requirement to initialize the qbman parent > before using its portals, and you need to use the portals that go with > the qbman instances that are connected to the device you want to > access... > >>> So there's no hardware connection between the bman and qman themselves? >> >> Not a single one > > OK. Please keep in mind that I haven't worked with this stuff as > closely as you have. :-) Huh? What do you mean? Cheers, -- 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
