Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1734337 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC/PATCH v4 1/4] Document nexus nodes/specifier remapping

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [RFC/PATCH v4 1/4] Document nexus nodes/specifier remapping Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> - 2017-09-18 19:50 +0200

#1734337 — 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

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web