On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Rob Herring wrote:

On 08/16/2012 10:35 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:

quoted

Add a doc to describe the Xen ARM device tree bindings

Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <redacted>
CC: devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org
CC: David Vrabel <redacted>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/xen.txt |   22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/xen.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/xen.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/xen.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ec6d884
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/xen.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+* Xen hypervisor device tree bindings
+
+Xen ARM virtual platforms shall have the following properties:
+
+- compatible:
+	compatible = "xen,xen", "xen,xen-<version>";
+  where <version> is the version of the Xen ABI of the platform.
+
+- reg: specifies the base physical address and size of a region in
+  memory where the grant table should be mapped to, using an
+  HYPERVISOR_memory_op hypercall. 
+
+- interrupts: the interrupt used by Xen to inject event notifications.

You should look at ePAPR 1.1 which defines hypervisor related bindings.
While it is a PPC doc, we should reuse or extend what makes sense.

See section 7.5:

https://www.power.org/resources/downloads/Power_ePAPR_APPROVED_v1.1.pdf

Thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of ePAPR.

The hypervisor node defined by ePAPR is not very different from what I
am proposing. Should I try to be compatible with the hypervisor
specification above (as in compatible = "epapr,hypervisor-1.1")?
Or should I just use it as a reference for my own specification?

Personally I would rather avoid full compatibility with ePAPR.