On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 12:55 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 04 March 2013, Ley Foon Tan wrote: > > This IP core is not in the SoC. This core is in the FPGA and can be > > accessed by the Nios II processor or accessed by SOCFPGA processor (ARM > > based) via its interface to FPGA. Due to this, I think it shouldn't use > > infrastructure in drivers/base/soc.c. > > What do you think? > > The sysid component gives a version for the entire FPGA part and all > components inside it, right? > > I think you should use the drivers/base/soc.c interface to describe the > SOCFPGA SoC components as well as the actual FPGA. You basically > end up having one device node that acts as the parent for the SoC > components, and a way to retrieve version information about it. > > Depending on how it fits the actual hardware layout more closely, > you could have one node as the parent for all devices, or the > FPGA SoC node as a child of the main one, or two SoC nodes side by > side from the top-level. > > Arnd > The sysid give the unique system ID and system generation timestamp of the system. CASE 1: SOCFPGA SoC + Sysid component in FPGA CASE 2 Nios II soft core CPU + Sysid (All in FPGA and no SoC is involved) >From example use cases above, Case 2 doesn't involve SoC component. To support both cases, do you think drivers/base/soc.c is still suitable? Thanks. LFTan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
