Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:39:13 -0600 | From | Rob Herring <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 5/8] dt-bindings: fsi: Add OCC documentation |
| |
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:46:54PM -0600, Eddie James wrote: > From: "Edward A. James" <eajames@us.ibm.com> > > Document the bindings for the P9 OCC device. OCC devices are accessed > through the SBEFIFO. > > Signed-off-by: Edward A. James <eajames@us.ibm.com> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..79094f5 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ > +Device-tree bindings for P9 On-Chip Controller > +---------------------------------------------- > + > +The POWER9 On-Chip Controller is accessed through the SBEFIFO. All OCC nodes > +must be child nodes of SBEFIFO devices (see ibm,p9-sbefifo.txt). > + > +Required properties: > + - compatible = "ibm,p9-occ"; > + > +Optional properties: > + - reg = <processor index>; : Index for the processor this OCC is on.
reg should be how the parent (SBEFIFO) addresses this device. Would all of these child devices be a unique processor?
I think a phandle to the cpu node would be more appropriate here.
> + > +Examples: > + > + occ@1 { > + compatible = "ibm,p9-occ"; > + reg = <1>; > + }; > -- > 1.8.3.1 >
|  |