On 07/06/2022 08:35, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
Also, the comment seems wrong to me. The qom parenting doesn't matter
when building the device tree.
it does. See pnv_dt_xscom()
Yeah, what I meant is that on P9, there's no "dt_scom" method for the
PHB. The PHBs are added by the dt_scom() of the PEC. So the parenting of
the PHB doesn't really matter.
I was actually wondering why it was done that way. If we have a clean
qom tree (again, only on P9/P10 because P8 is wrong), then the PEC could
add the "pbcq@xxxxxx" layer in the device tree, then call the qom
children, i.e. the PHBs, and they would each add themselves (each phb
adds the 'stack@xxxxxx' entry in the device tree).
But then I see your comment about giving headaches for user-created
devices. So something else to discuss...
Fred
