On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 09:50:42AM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 11:07 -0800, Tao Ren wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

This looks generally okay. We should wait for Ben's ack before
applying.

Shouldn't we instead have DT fields indicating those values ?

May I ask why we prefer adding dt fields (such as "aspeed,vhub-max-ports"
and "aspeed,vhub-max-endpoints") instead of assigning these values based
on aspeed family? For example, is it to allow users to set a smaller
number of ports/endpoints?

It's not a strong drive but it makes it more convenient to add support
to newer revisions if the only differences are those numbers.

Got it. Thanks for the clarify. Will send out v2 patches after more
testing.

quoted

quoted

Also we should add a DT representation for the various ID/strings of
the hub itself so manufacturers can customize them.

Sure. I will add DT nodes for vendor/product/device IDs/strings. As it's
not directly related to ast2600-support, shall I handle it in a separate
patch? Or I can include the patch in this patch series?

Separate. Thanks !

Will take care of the change once this patch series is accepted.


Cheers,

Tao

Cheers,
Ben.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel