[PATCH 2/4] dt/bindings: Introduce the FSL QorIQ DPAA BMan portal(s)

[Scott Wood]

On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 15:04 -0500, Emil Medve wrote:
> Hello Mark,
> 
> 
> Thanks for having a look at this
> 
> On 10/22/2014 09:29 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > I'd feel rather uncomfortable accepting a
> > binding that we already believe to be insufficient to describe the
> > hardware.
> > 
> > What do you expect to change?
> 
> Related bindings seem incomplete. As such, the PAMU binding (pamu.txt)
> covers incompletely a dynamic LIODN assignment/programming model. The
> current driver uses a static assignment scheme that the binding needs to
> include. I also suspect that once the driver starts supporting the
> dynamic LIODN assignment/programming we might find some wrinkles

How is this different from any of the other QorIQ bindings that have
been merged without such a disclaimer?  The static LIODN model is
already there, even if documentation is missing, and should continue to
be supported even if we eventually implement a dynamic LIODN model.

> >> +
> >> +	bman-portals at ff4000000 {
> >> +		#address-cells = <1>;
> >> +		#size-cells = <1>;
> >> +		compatible = "simple-bus";
> >> +		ranges = <0 0xf 0xf4000000 0x200000>;
> >> +
> >> +		bman-portal at 0 {
> >> +			compatible = "fsl,bman-portal-1.0.0", "fsl,bman-portal";
> >> +			reg = <0x0 0x4000 0x100000 0x1000>;
> > 
> > It would be easier to read is each entry had its own set of brackets.
> > Initially this looked to me like a single 64-bit address/size pair.
> 
> Something like <>, <>? It doesn't seem widely used but I agree is more
> readable. I can include it in the the next spin

The older PPC device trees haven't used it much but I think it's pretty
common in the newer ARM trees.

-Scott