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, though we need to deal with the possibility that the bqman node may not be present (e.g. in a vm guest). > >>> by having phandles and/or a parent container to connect the related > >>> components. > >> > >> Connecting the related components is beyond the scope of this binding. > >> It will soon hit the e-mail list(s) as part of upstreaming the Ethernet > >> driver > > > > So you want us to merge this binding without being told how this works? > > This binding stands on its own and each block (B/QMan) can be used for > some useful purpose by itself. All other blocks/applications that use > the B/QMan use the same basic interface acquire/release a "buffer" and > enqueue/dequeue a "packet". I'm not sure what you feel I didn't share So there's no hardware connection between the bman and qman themselves? -Scott -- 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
