Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 6/8] dts: coresight: Clean up the device tree graph bindings | From | Suzuki K Poulose <> | Date | Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:53:46 +0100 |
| |
On 13/06/18 22:07, Matt Sealey wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> >> >>> So, if the suggestion is to use an existing property "unit", I am fine >>> with it, if people agree to it. >> >> If we're going to have something sharply different than ACPI I prefer >> Rob's idea.
No, the above comment is about using "unit" ( if it is a standard property for specifying something specific to hardware) instead of "coresight,hwid". I would prefer to stick to the DT graph bindings, because :
1) The connections are bi-directional => Well, not necessarily bi-directional in terms of the data flow. But the connection information is critical. i.e, we need information about both the end-points of a connection, which the DT graph bindings solves.
All we are missing is a way for specifying the "hardware port" number and the direction of flow. I don't see why do we need to create something new just for these two properties for something that exists today and works reasonably well for the usecase.
> > What are you trying to say about being sharply different than ACPI?
The proposed Coresight ACPI draft bindings are based on the ACPI Graph bindings (just like the DT graph bindings and is compatible with it, in terms of the APIs. i.e, fwnode_graph_* operations work for both ACPI and DT alike).
So, what Mathieu, in turn means is, if we depart from the DT Graph bindings, which I personally don't see any benefit in.
Suzuki
| |