On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:53:44 +0100, Marc Zyngier <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/04/12 10:22, David Vrabel wrote: > > Hi David, > > > On 02/04/12 17:30, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> The GICv2 can have virtualization extension support, consisting > >> of an additional set of registers and interrupts. Add the necessary > >> binding to the GIC DT documentation. > > > > The Xen hypervisor's device tree support is very much incomplete so I've > > not looked into this is much detail. > > > > Would it make more sense to extend the existing gic binding with the the > > additional information rather than adding a new node? > > I'm actually torn between the two approaches. On one side, the VGIC is > part of the GIC spec, hence should be part of the GIC node. On the other > hand, it is logically handled by a different piece of software (the > hypervisor), and would normally be probed separately. Having a separate > node makes the probing more sensible.
Don't get too hung up on the software side of things. Describe it in a way that makes sense for the hardware. There is lots of precidence for two hunks of software initializating from the same node; either by probe kicking off two init hooks, or by early init code going looking for the node manually. g. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
