On Thu, 23 Jul 2026, Yu-Che Hsieh wrote: > Some SoCs (e.g. AST2700) expose more than one physical LPC controller > instance. Downstream devices such as KCS channels need a stable, > globally-unique index derived from which LPC controller instance they > belong to, so document the "lpcN" alias convention on the LPC > controller node that lets DT authors assign a fixed index per > instance, mirroring the existing alias-based numbering convention used > by mmc/i2c/spi/serial. > > Signed-off-by: Yu-Che Hsieh <[email protected]>
Why is this RFC? What's stopping me from applying this now? > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/aspeed-lpc.yaml | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/aspeed-lpc.yaml > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/aspeed-lpc.yaml > index cbc3a2485a2f..81c12e0fb312 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/aspeed-lpc.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/aspeed-lpc.yaml > @@ -35,6 +35,13 @@ description: > configuration, therefore the host portion of the controller is exposed as a > syscon as a means to arbitrate access. > > + On SoCs that expose more than one LPC controller instance, it is possible > to > + assign a fixed index to a given instance (and thus to downstream devices > + such as KCS channels that must be uniquely identified system-wide) by > + defining an "lpcN" alias for it in the /aliases device tree node. If no > such > + alias is present, the SoC is treated as having a single LPC controller > + instance. > + > properties: > compatible: > items: > > -- > 2.34.1 > -- Lee Jones _______________________________________________ Openipmi-developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openipmi-developer
