Messages in this thread | | | From | Rob Herring <> | Date | Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:44:38 -0500 | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH v4 1/4] Document nexus nodes/specifier remapping |
| |
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@linaro.org> wrote: > Document the generic nexus node properties. This can be used by > any specifier that conforms to #<specifier>-cells where they > want to support remapping phandle lists through nexus nodes. This > is similar to interrupt remapping, but slightly different because > we don't consider unit addresses when doing mappings. This is > mostly a copy/paste of the interrupt specification, with the unit > address parts removed and generalized to any specifier. There's > also the addition of a pass through mechanism to make things more > compact if desired in the mapping table.
Sorry for the slow response.
I'm still wondering how/if we can merge interrupts as part of this (both the spec and parsing implementation). Could we simply require that #address-cells is 0 or do we even need this distinction? If the usecase is connectors, then we should typically be able to set #address-cells to 0. Perhaps you could have a custom PCI connector with additional signals and the slot/connector node would have the PCI address. In this case, we would have #address-cells, but having them and ignoring the address cells via the mask would still work.
Also, I don't see any issue if we allow the -map-pass-thru property for interrupts.
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@linaro.org> > --- > > I still need to write the blurb about what this is all about, but > I wanted to send this out now to get early feedback. Some starting > points: > > 1) Replace child/parent with incoming/outgoing everywhere?
Parent/child is more common, so I think that's fine.
> > 2) Make a pretty picture to describe remapping phandle+specifiers > similar to the interrupt hierarchy diagram?
Pictures are always nice, but I don't think required.
> > 3) Come up with some better name than <specifier>? Kernel-doc uses <list> > but I'm not sure that's any better.
specifier seems fine to me.
Rob
| |