On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 09:56:33AM +0200, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

On Mon, 2018-09-10 at 13:16 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 04:32:32PM -0500, Eddie James wrote:

quoted

Document the bindings for the FSI-attached POWER9 On-Chip Controller.

Signed-off-by: Eddie James <redacted>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt | 15 +++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..46372f6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+Device-tree bindings for FSI-attached POWER9 On-Chip Controller (OCC)
+---------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This is the binding for the P9 On-Chip Controller accessed over FSI from a
+service processor. See fsi.txt for details on bindings for FSI slave and CFAM
+nodes.
+
+Required properties:
+ - compatible = "ibm,p9-occ"
+
+Examples:
+
+    occ {

FSI slave devices are supposed to have an address according to the 
binding doc.

This isn't the FSI device per-se actually. This is a node below the
"sbefifo" FSI device. The SBE fifo is the mechanism by which we
communicate with the OCC. The sbefifo doesn't really define a "bus",
it's mostly used from userspace directly via /dev/sbefifo* to perform
various tasks in the chip, but it happens to also provide the in-kernel 
transport for the OCC commands.

What is the conclusion here ? Is it ok as-is, or does it have to be changed ?

Thanks,
Guenter

Cheers,
Ben.

quoted

quoted

+        compatible = "ibm,p9-occ";
+    };
-- 
1.8.3.1