Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 23/10/2015 15:41, Måns Rullgård wrote: > >> Marc Gonzalez wrote: >> >>> On 22/10/2015 16:02, Mans Rullgard wrote: >>> >>>> This adds a binding for the Aurora VLSI NB8800 Ethernet controller >>>> using the "aurora,nb8800" compatible string. When used in Sigma >>>> Designs chips a few additional control registers are available. >>>> This variant is indicated by the "sigma,smp8640-ethernet" compatible >>>> string. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Mans Rullgard <mans@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/net/aurora,nb8800.txt | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+) >>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/aurora,nb8800.txt >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/aurora,nb8800.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/aurora,nb8800.txt >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 0000000..c19f615 >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/aurora,nb8800.txt >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ >>>> +* Aurora VLSI AU-NB8800 Ethernet controller >>>> + >>>> +Required properties: >>>> +- compatible: Should be "aurora,nb8800", "sigma,smp8640-ethernet" >>>> + The latter indicates presence of extra features added by Sigma Designs. >>> >>> I've been meaning to ask a noob question to the devicetree group >>> about how names for compatible strings are chosen. >>> >>> Sigma Designs has two active SoC families, Tango3 (which consists of >>> about a dozen MIPS-based SoCs, typically named SMP86xx) and Tango4 >>> (a few ARM-based SoCs, typically named SMP87xx). I should note that >>> there is no SMP8640 SoC AFAIK, rather SMP864x is a Tango3 sub-family >>> (I could locate 42,43,44,45,46). >>> >>> AFAIK, all our SoCs are using the same Aurora NB8800 Ethernet MAC, >>> along with the extra features. I find it odd to use a specific SoC >>> model to refer to this device, instead of a more generic name. >>> (It's weird having to mention smp8640 in the tango4 DT.) >> >> I picked 8640 since all 8640 or higher chips are compatible (863x chips >> (tango2) are not). Some of the later versions have additional extra >> features, but they all work with the basic driver. >> >> There also appear to be some differences (bug fixes?) between 8643 and >> 8759 (the ones I have) not documented anywhere. > > I'm trying to locate someone who would know these kinds of details. More specifically, the DMA completion interrupts seem to behave differently. >>> I thought one had to specify also whether the device sent "edge" >>> or "level" IRQs? >> >> Depends on the interrupt controller. This is just an example. > > Sorry for the noise. (I thought edge/level was a device property, > as in "I'll just pulse that IRQ, or I'll hold it until someone > asks me to shut up.") Most devices keep the interrupt request line high until explicitly cleared by a driver. Whether you want edge or level triggering depends on the driver design and if the interrupt is shared with other devices. -- Måns Rullgård mans@xxxxxxxxx -- 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
