On 07/29/2016 07:48 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 03:24:22PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 07/28/2016 01:07 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
I think I questioned the need, not rejected. What about the above, but
remove serivces level:
bpmp {
...
i2c {
i2c@0 {
reg = <0>;
Sigh. Can you please talk to Thierry and work out what the binding would be
(perhaps on IRC to expedite things?) and I'll just implement whatever you
two agree upon. I don't really care much what the binding looks like any
more; I just need something that will pass review. Thanks.
Like I said, I'm fine going with what you proposed.
OK, great. For the record, I'm going to send U-Boot patches today that
apply this binding patch (the original one I sent, unmodified) to the
U-Boot tree, and implement it in the U-Boot driver.
--
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
