On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:46:54PM -0600, Eddie James wrote:
> From: "Edward A. James" <[email protected]>
>
> Document the bindings for the P9 OCC device. OCC devices are accessed
> through the SBEFIFO.
>
> Signed-off-by: Edward A. James <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..79094f5
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> +Device-tree bindings for P9 On-Chip Controller
> +----------------------------------------------
> +
> +The POWER9 On-Chip Controller is accessed through the SBEFIFO. All OCC nodes
> +must be child nodes of SBEFIFO devices (see ibm,p9-sbefifo.txt).
> +
> +Required properties:
> + - compatible = "ibm,p9-occ";
> +
> +Optional properties:
> + - reg = <processor index>; : Index for the processor this OCC is on.
reg should be how the parent (SBEFIFO) addresses this device. Would all
of these child devices be a unique processor?
I think a phandle to the cpu node would be more appropriate here.
> +
> +Examples:
> +
> + occ@1 {
> + compatible = "ibm,p9-occ";
> + reg = <1>;
> + };
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
