[PATCH v2] powerpc/fsl: Added binding for Freescale CoreNet coherency fabric (CCF)

[Scott Wood]

On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 17:16 +0300, Diana Craciun wrote:
> On 04/19/2014 12:33 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-04-18 at 18:11 +0300, Diana Craciun wrote:
> >> From: Diana Craciun <Diana.Craciun at freescale.com>
> >>
> >> The CoreNet coherency fabric is a fabric-oriented, conectivity
> >> infrastructure that enables the implementation of coherent, multicore
> >> systems. The CCF acts as a central interconnect for cores,
> >> platform-level caches, memory subsystem, peripheral devices and I/O host
> >> bridges in the system.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Diana Craciun <Diana.Craciun at freescale.com>
> >> ---
> >>   .../devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/ccf.txt        | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>   1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
> >>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/ccf.txt
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/ccf.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/ccf.txt
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 0000000..f0b7143
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/ccf.txt
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
> >> +Freescale CoreNet Coherency Fabric(CCF) Device Tree Binding
> >> +
> >> +DESCRIPTION
> >> +
> >> +The CoreNet coherency fabric is a fabric-oriented, connectivity infrastructure
> >> +that enables the implementation of coherent, multicore systems.
> >> +
> >> +Required properties:
> >> +
> >> +- compatible : <string>
> >> +		Must include "fsl,corenetX-cf", "fsl,corenet-cf" - CoreNet coherency
> >> +		fabric version X
> > Specify "fsl,corenet1-cf" and "fsl,corenet2-cf" rather than
> > "fsl,corenetX-cf" (given there's nothing in a chip manual that you can
> > correlate with the value of X), and provide example chips for each.
> 
> OK.
> 
> > Also specify that "fsl,corenet-cf" represents the registers that are
> > common between the two versions (not arbitrary "fsl,corenetX-cf" -- if
> > there's ever an "fsl,corenet3-cf" it may not be compatible with this),
> > and is retained for compatibility reasons.
> >
> 
> What do you mean by common?  There are the csdids and snoop ids 
> registers which are common  between the two versions but only by name 
> because the register format is not the same.

The only difference I see is that corenet2-cf documents certain bits as
being for core clusters, and another bit as being for the PAMU, whereas
corenet1-cf opaquely describes all the bits as "port id".  This isn't
really a change, just a documentation difference plus a difference in
how cores and PAMUs map to port ids (this differs within corenet1-cf
chips as well, as it's based on the number of cores and the number of
pamus).  That mapping should be expressed in the device tree binding
somehow.

-Scott