Re: [PATCH v3] Axi-usb: Add support for 64-bit addressing.
From: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Date: 2016-05-25 17:34:25
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, lkml
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:47:31AM +0000, Nava kishore Manne wrote:
quoted
-----Original Message----- From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd@arndb.de] Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:21 PM To: Nava kishore Manne <redacted> Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org; pawel.moll@arm.com; mark.rutland@arm.com; ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk; galak@codeaurora.org; Michal Simek [off-list ref]; Soren Brinkmann [off-list ref]; balbi@ti.com; gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; Hyun Kwon [off-list ref]; Nava kishore Manne [off-list ref]; Radhey Shyam Pandey [off-list ref]; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux- arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Axi-usb: Add support for 64-bit addressing. On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 10:51:08 AM CEST Nava kishore Manne wrote:quoted
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/udc-xilinx.txtb/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/udc-xilinx.txt index 47b4e39..09df757 100644--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/udc-xilinx.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/udc-xilinx.txt@@ -1,18 +1,23 @@ Xilinx USB2 device controller Required properties: -- compatible : Should be "xlnx,usb2-device-4.00.a" +- compatible : Should be "xlnx,usb2-device-4.00.a" or + "xlnx,usb2-device-5.00" - reg : Physical base address and size of the USB2 device registers map. - interrupts : Should contain single irq line of USB2 device controller - xlnx,has-builtin-dma : if DMA is included +- dma-ranges : Should be as the following + <child-bus-address, parent-bus-address, length>A USB host should not have any children that are DMA capable, I think, so this property doesn't make sense here. It should be part of the parent bus.Will send next version (v4) by removing this property from the DT.quoted
quoted
+- xlnx,addrwidth : Should be the dma addressing size in bits(ex: 64bits) I'm still unconvinced about the property definition here. What are the possible options for the IP block? I don't think I ever saw a reply from you to my earlier questions.Sorry Let me clearly explain From the IP version 5.0 onwards The IP support both 32-bit and 64-bit addressing. But the older version of the IP's supports only 32-bit addressing. This addrwidth property differentiates the address width for the new IP (I mean 5.0 version on wards) For older IP it will be always 32-bit.
Then I think you should have a simple boolean property for 64-bit configuration.