[PATCH] of: support an enumerated-bus compatible value

[Grant Likely]

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 07/01/2012 01:36 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 06/28/2012 06:05 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren at nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> An "enumerated" bus is one that is not memory-mapped, hence hence
>>> typically has #address-cells=1, and #size-cells=0. Such buses would be
>>> used to group related non-memory-mapped nodes together, often just under
>>> the top-level of the device tree. The ability to group nodes into a non-
>>> memory-mapped subnode of the root is important, since if nodes exist to
>>> describe multiple entities of the same type, the nodes will have the
>>> same name, and hence require a unit address to differentiate them. It
>>> doesn't make sense to assign bogus unit addresses from the CPU's own
>>> address space for this purpose. An example:
>>>
>>>      regulators {
>>>              compatible = "enumerated-bus";
>>>              #address-cells = <1>;
>>>              #size-cells = <0>;
>>>
>>>              regulator at 0 {
>>>                      compatible = "regulator-fixed";
>>>                      reg = <0>;
>>>              };
>>>
>>>              regulator at 1 {
>>>                      compatible = "regulator-fixed";
>>>                      reg = <1>;
>>>              };
>>>      };
>>>
>>> Finally, because such buses are not memory-mapped, we avoid creating
>>> any IO/memory resources for the device.
>>
>> This seems like a work-around to use reg instead of using cell-index
>> (which is discouraged). reg in this case is really not a hardware
>> description. Do you have an intended use or just trying to fix the error
>> messages?
>
> I'm not familiar with cell-index; can you please describe it some more.
> Looking at some existing files in arch/powerpc/boot/dts, it looks like
> something that exists alongside reg rather than replacing it, so I don't
> see how it'd solve the problem.
>
> The portion of .dts file quoted above is the use-case. In more general
> terms, I need to add a bunch of non-memory-mapped devices to DT. There
> are multiple devices of a given type. The DT node names should be named
> after the class of device not the instance, and hence all get named the
> same. Hence, I need a unit address to differentiate the node names.
> Hence I need to use the reg property in order that the unit address
> matches the reg property. Is there some other way of solving these
> requirements other than using a unit address to make the node names unique?
>
> On 07/01/2012 04:03 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> ...
>> Besides; if they are enumerated, non-memory mapped devices, then is it
>> really appropriate to use platform_{device,driver}? I don't think it
>> is.
>
> Hmm, well /everything/ that gets instantiated from DT is a platform
> device at present, at least for the platforms and bus types we're using
> on Tegra and I believe all/most ARM platforms, except some small amounts
> of AMBA.

Not true.  SPI devices beget spi_device, i2c devices i2c_client, etc.
The appropriate structure for the kind of device should always be
used.

g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.