On 03/20/2014 12:08 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:50:07PM +0100, Valentin Longchamp wrote:
>> + reset_cpld@1,0 {
>> + interrupt-controller;
>> + #interrupt-cells = <2>;
>> + reg = <1 0 0x80>;
>> + interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
>> + interrupts = <
>> + 4 1 0 0
>> + 5 1 0 0>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + chassis_mgmt@3,0 {
>> + interrupt-controller;
>> + #interrupt-cells = <2>;
>> + reg = <3 0 0x100>;
>> + interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
>> + interrupts = <6 1 0 0>;
>> + };
>
> Dashes are preferred to underscores in device trees.
OK.
>
> More importantly, these nodes need proper compatibles and bindings. Once
> that's done, the name for the nodes should probably be
> "board_control@whatever" for both.
>
The first one can be board-ctrl. The second however manages things that are
beyond this board and important for other boards in the chassis, so I think
chassis-mgmt is correct.
For the binding/compatbiles issues: in the first discussion I had omitted these
nodes because these are not available (and honestly for such FPGAs I doubt they
will ever be mainlined). We discussed it and concluded that the DTS should
describe the HW and not the drivers available in the kernel so I have now added
them. Do you want me to add the compatible strings we use in our tree even
though there are no bindings ? Leave them as is ? Or drop them ?
Valentin
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
