On 4/14/24 19:50, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
On Fri, 2024-04-12 at 09:43 -0500, Eddie James wrote:
The SBEFIFO engine provides an interface to the POWER processor
Self Boto Engine (SBE).
Signed-off-by: Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,sbefifo.yaml | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,sbefifo.yaml
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,sbefifo.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,sbefifo.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..d70012e42d79
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,sbefifo.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/fsi/ibm,sbefifo.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: IBM FSI-attached SBEFIFO engine
+
+maintainers:
+ - Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
+description: |
+ This binding describes an FSI CFAM engine called the SBEFIFO. Therefore this
+ node will always be a child of an FSI CFAM node; see fsi.txt for details on
+ FSI slave and CFAM nodes. This SBEFIFO engine provides an interface to the
+ POWER processor Self Boot Engine (SBE).
+
+properties:
+ compatible:
+ enum:
+ - ibm,p9-sbefifo
+ - ibm,ody-sbefifo
Bit of a nitpick, but: Is there any argument against using
`ibm,odyssey-sbefifo`? Feels less cryptic.
True, that might be better.
Andrew
