[PATCH 1/4] dt/bindings: Introduce the FSL QorIQ DPAA BMan

[Varun Sethi]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-
> bounces+varun.sethi=freescale.com at lists.ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of Emil
> Medve
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 3:10 AM
> To: Wood Scott-B07421; Kumar Gala
> Cc: mark.rutland at arm.com; devicetree at vger.kernel.org;
> pawel.moll at arm.com; corbet at lwn.net; Thorpe Geoff-R01361;
> ijc+devicetree at hellion.org.uk; linux-doc at vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
> dev at ozlabs.org; robh+dt at kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt/bindings: Introduce the FSL QorIQ DPAA BMan
> 
> Hello Scott,
> 
> 
> On 10/28/2014 01:08 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 09:36 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >> On Oct 22, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Emil Medve <Emilian.Medve at freescale.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The Buffer Manager is part of the Data-Path Acceleration Architecture
> (DPAA).
> >>> BMan supports hardware allocation and deallocation of buffers
> >>> belonging to pools originally created by software with configurable
> depletion thresholds.
> >>> This binding covers the CCSR space programming model
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Emil Medve <Emilian.Medve at Freescale.com>
> >>> Change-Id: I3ec479bfb3c91951e96902f091f5d7d2adbef3b2
> >>> ---
> >>> .../devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/bman.txt       | 98
> ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 98 insertions(+)
> >>> create mode 100644
> >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/bman.txt
> >>
> >> Should these really be in bindings/powerpc/fsl, aren’t you guys using this on
> ARM SoCs as well?
> >
> > The hardware on the ARM SoCs is different enough that I'm not sure the
> > same binding will cover it.  That said, putting things under <arch>
> > should be a last resort if nowhere else fits.
> 
> OTC started ported the driver to the the ARM SoC and the feedback has been
> that the driver needed minimal changes. The IOMMU has been the only area
> of concern, and a small change to the binding has been suggested
IOMMU specific binding would be different. The binding would have to comply to the arm-smmu binding (which needs to be updated).

-Varun