On 07/26/2016 10:21 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 07/26/2016 04:03 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 01:14:41PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>
The BPMP implements some services which must be represented by separate
nodes. For example, it can provide access to certain I2C controllers,
and
the I2C bindings represent each I2C controller as a device tree node.
Update the binding to describe how the BPMP supports this.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../bindings/firmware/nvidia,tegra186-bpmp.txt | 23
++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
diff --git
a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/nvidia,tegra186-bpmp.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/nvidia,tegra186-bpmp.txt
index 9a3864f56955..142d363406f6 100644
---
a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/nvidia,tegra186-bpmp.txt
+++
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/nvidia,tegra186-bpmp.txt
@@ -38,6 +38,24 @@ implemented by this node:
- .../reset/reset.txt
- <dt-bindings/reset/tegra186-reset.h>
+The BPMP implements some services which must be represented by
separate nodes.
+For example, it can provide access to certain I2C controllers, and
the I2C
+bindings represent each I2C controller as a device tree node. Such
nodes should
+be nested directly inside the main BPMP node.
+
+Software can determine whether a child node of the BPMP node
represents a device
+by checking for a compatible property. Any node with a compatible
property
+represents a device that can be instantiated. Nodes without a
compatible
+property may be used to provide configuration information regarding
the BPMP
+itself, although no such configuration nodes are currently defined
by this
+binding.
+
+The BPMP firmware defines no single global name-/numbering-space for
such
+services. Put another way, the numbering scheme for I2C buses is
distinct from
+the numbering scheme for any other service the BPMP may provide
(e.g. a future
+hypothetical SPI bus service). As such, child device nodes will have
no reg
+property, and the BPMP node will have no #address-cells or
#size-cells property.
My understanding is that the I2C bus number is passed as part of the
request to the BPMP firmware. Does that not count as addressing? Could
we not represent that generically using a device tree hierarchy? I'm
thinking something along these lines:
bpmp {
...
services {
i2c {
i2c@0 {
reg = <0>;
Technically, that is possible. However, Rob Herring rejected the idea of
multiple levels of sub-nodes.
Can we please just go with what we have? DT bindings are frankly an
obstacle to getting anything done:-(
Thierry, any further thoughts here? I really need to get these DT
bindings finalized so that I can use them in U-Boot, which is very
urgent. Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
