On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 15:04 -0500, Emil Medve wrote:
> Hello Mark,
>
>
> Thanks for having a look at this
>
> On 10/22/2014 09:29 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > I'd feel rather uncomfortable accepting a
> > binding that we already believe to be insufficient to describe the
> > hardware.
> >
> > What do you expect to change?
>
> Related bindings seem incomplete. As such, the PAMU binding (pamu.txt)
> covers incompletely a dynamic LIODN assignment/programming model. The
> current driver uses a static assignment scheme that the binding needs to
> include. I also suspect that once the driver starts supporting the
> dynamic LIODN assignment/programming we might find some wrinkles
How is this different from any of the other QorIQ bindings that have
been merged without such a disclaimer? The static LIODN model is
already there, even if documentation is missing, and should continue to
be supported even if we eventually implement a dynamic LIODN model.
> >> +
> >> + bman-portals@ff4000000 {
> >> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >> + #size-cells = <1>;
> >> + compatible = "simple-bus";
> >> + ranges = <0 0xf 0xf4000000 0x200000>;
> >> +
> >> + bman-portal@0 {
> >> + compatible = "fsl,bman-portal-1.0.0", "fsl,bman-portal";
> >> + reg = <0x0 0x4000 0x100000 0x1000>;
> >
> > It would be easier to read is each entry had its own set of brackets.
> > Initially this looked to me like a single 64-bit address/size pair.
>
> Something like <>, <>? It doesn't seem widely used but I agree is more
> readable. I can include it in the the next spin
The older PPC device trees haven't used it much but I think it's pretty
common in the newer ARM trees.
-Scott
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
