> I don't understand what you are referring to, entire context is gone > because essentially you top-posted.
Sorry about that. I misunderstood the mailing list etiquette. Inline reply below. On 29/06/2026 08:49, Yu-Che Hsieh via B4 Relay wrote: >> From: Yu-Che Hsieh <[email protected]> >> >> Allocating IO and IRQ resources to LPC devices is in-theory an operation >> >> for the host, however ASPEED systems describe these resources through >> >> BMC-internal configuration, as already supported by the ASPEED KCS BMC > What > > is > > with > > this > > line breaks? Apologies for the broken formatting in the commit message. I will fix it in the next revision. >> + aspeed,lpc-io-reg: >> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array >> + maxItems: 1 >> + description: | >> + The host CPU LPC IO address for the BT device. > No, you do not get second reg property. >> + >> + aspeed,lpc-interrupts: >> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array >> + minItems: 2 >> + maxItems: 2 >> + description: | >> + A 2-cell property expressing the LPC SerIRQ number and the interrupt >> + level/sense encoding (specified in the standard fashion). >> + >> + Note that the generated interrupt is issued from the BMC to the host, >> and >> + thus the target interrupt controller is not captured by the BMC's > + devicetree. > No, you do not get second interrupts property. Understood. These values are not addressable resources of the BMC node itself; rather, they describe how the BMC's LPC engine is exposed on the host LPC bus. I am not sure how they should be represented in DT, since they do not seem to fit the usual semantics of either "reg" or "interrupts". Do you have a preferred way to represent this kind of host-facing LPC configuration in the binding? Thanks, Yu-Che _______________________________________________ Openipmi-developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openipmi-developer
