Hi Neil, Apologies for the delayed response.
On 12.04.18 г. 16:15, Neil Armstrong wrote: > On 09/03/2018 22:09, Georgi Djakov wrote: >> This binding is intended to represent the interconnect hardware present >> in some of the modern SoCs. Currently it consists only of a binding for >> the interconnect hardware devices (provider). >> >> Signed-off-by: Georgi Djakov <georgi.dja...@linaro.org> >> --- >> .../bindings/interconnect/interconnect.txt | 47 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/interconnect.txt >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/interconnect.txt >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/interconnect.txt >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..70612bb201e4 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/interconnect.txt >> @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ >> +Interconnect Provider Device Tree Bindings >> +========================================= >> + >> +The purpose of this document is to define a common set of generic >> interconnect >> +providers/consumers properties. >> + >> + >> += interconnect providers = >> + >> +The interconnect provider binding is intended to represent the interconnect >> +controllers in the system. Each provider registers a set of interconnect >> +nodes, which expose the interconnect related capabilities of the >> interconnect >> +to consumer drivers. These capabilities can be throughput, latency, priority >> +etc. The consumer drivers set constraints on interconnect path (or >> endpoints) >> +depending on the usecase. Interconnect providers can also be interconnect >> +consumers, such as in the case where two network-on-chip fabrics interface >> +directly > > Hi, > > Can't we specify the number of cells for the phandle ? It should be aligned > with other consumer/provider bindings. Yes, that's the plan. Will align it! Thanks, Georgi