From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com (Ezequiel Garcia)
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 09:44:21 -0300
Subject: mvebu: mbus device tree binding
In-Reply-To: <20130520123153.GA2904@localhost>
References: <20130520123153.GA2904@localhost>
Message-ID: <20130520124420.GA3030@localhost>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi,

Adding Jason to the discussion.

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 09:31:53AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> Hello Arnd and Jason,
> 
> Let's advance with the DT binding for mvebu-mbus,
> and perhaps have it ready for v3.11.
> 
> Our current approach to the mbus-windows allocation is as follows:
> 
> 1. Every device is located as a child of the soc/internal-regs node.
>    The DT contains information for the assigned address space,
>    encoded in the 'ranges' property, like this:
> 
>    soc {
>    
>    	ranges =  < internal-regs
>         	    PCIe
> 		    NOR
> 		    ... >;
>    	internal-regs {
> 		...
>    	};
>    }
> 
> 
> 2. Each driver is in charge of allocating the mbus windows, using
>    the mbus API and the address region obtained through the information
>    on the device tree.
> 
> Now, this approach is particularly error-prone because of (1). The
> 'ranges' entry in a given .dtsi file is overrided by the 'ranges'
> in the per-board .dts file. So, when if we need to declare a node for a
> NOR device, we need to duplicate all ranges entries from the parent
> .dtsi files.
> 
> This does not seem to be hugely problematic, for one could put the
> 'ranges' property only in the per-board files, and remove it from the
> common dtsi.
> 
> Therefore, first of all I'd like to know:
> 
> **1** What's so broken with the current approach that makes us seek for
>       solution, in the form of an mbus DT binding?
> 
> In addition, reading the previous discussion you've had about this, I
> noticed Arnd suggested (and even required) that the mbus binding should
> update the ranges property in the DT blob each time an address window
> is dynamically allocated.
> 
> **2** Why is this required? Who will read the updated ranges
>       information?
>       Why can't the kernel access the mbus API to obtain information
>       about currently allocated windows?
> 
> Those are my questions for now and I'm quite sure many more will come
> in the future, so please bare with me!
> 
> Thanks a lot,
> -- 
> Ezequiel Garc?a, Free Electrons
> Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
> http://free-electrons.com

-- 
Ezequiel Garc?a, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com