[PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: allow child nodes inside the Tegra BPMP

[Thierry Reding]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 01:14:41PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> From: Stephen Warren <swarren at nvidia.com>
> 
> 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 at nvidia.com>
> ---
>  .../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 at 0 {
					reg = <0>;
					...
				};

				i2c at 1 {
					reg = <1>;
					...
				};

				...
			};

			spi {
				...
			};

			...
		};

		...
	};

Note that we could probably do without the "services" node, but this is
explicit in categorizing these as services exposed by the BPMP. We might
need the extra node to work around the issue that some child nodes of
the BPMP node don't have a reg property (configuration nodes), whereas
any of the services would have those. Although you could make the top-
level "i2c" and "spi" nodes take #address-cells and #size-cells
properties.

Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20160726/a1f4f97b/attachment.sig>