[Skiboot] [PATCH v3 0/6] Enable basic VAS support

[Balbir Singh]

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu
<sukadev at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Balbir Singh [bsingharora at gmail.com] wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01/12/16 11:46, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
>> > Oliver O'Halloran [oohall at gmail.com] wrote:
>> >> Half the reason we have the DT is to avoid having to guess about what
>> >> hardware is present based on things like the processor version. Is
>> >> there a compelling reason not to create a DT node?
>> >
>> > Not really. I was keeping the code minimal. Will add a patch on top of this
>> > set to create a device node for VAS under the xscom node.
>> >
>>
>> That sounds reasonable, but I think it would be nice to discuss the design
>> of the DT interface. I assume it won't be too late to revisit these patches then?
>
> With this change to my patchset:
>
> diff --git a/core/vas.c b/core/vas.c
> index 48d9505..9107e6b 100644
> --- a/core/vas.c
> +++ b/core/vas.c
> @@ -372,6 +372,8 @@ static int init_one_chip(struct proc_chip *chip)
>         if (alloc_irqs(chip))
>                 goto out;
>
> +       (void)dt_new(chip->devnode, "vas");
> +
>         prlog(PR_INFO, "VAS: Initialized chip %d\n", chip->id);
>
>         return 0;
>
> I get:
>
>         # ls /proc/device-tree/xscom at 603fc00000000/vas/
>         name     phandle
>
>         # od -xc  /proc/device-tree/xscom at 603fc00000000/vas/name
>         0000000   v   a   s  \0
>                 7661 7300
>         0000004
>
>         # od -xc  /proc/device-tree/xscom at 603fc00000000/vas/phandle
>         0000000  \0  \0  \0   $
>                 0000 0024
>         0000004
>
> 'vas' should show up under each chip of course. I can fold that change
> into one of my patches, but do we need to do anything else at this point?

I think it would be nice to add uvw/hvwc addresses/mask? number of windows/
size of windows, etc. I am not a DT expert, but it would be good to get broader
opinion

Balbir Singh