Re: [PATCH 1/5] Add the explanation and sample of RapidIO DTS sector to the document of booting-without-of.txt file.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+    - device_type : Should be "rapidio"

There is no OF binding, so no.

So, we need to define it.

If you want to.  Until that has been done, don't use
a "device_type".  Linux won't use it, anyway.

Do you have another ideas about that? Only remove it?

Yeah, remove it.

quoted

quoted

Using IP Block Revision is a
clear choice.

I don't think so.  For one thing, it describes a version of
a cell design, not a version of an actual device.  For another
thing, if I hear "8641" I know what you're talking about (sort
of, anyway), but I draw a blank stare if you say "v1.0".  I'm
sure I'm not the only one.  Concrete names are good.

quoted

From the different view ways, there are different results. Getting the

version from RapidIO IP revision register is clear to me. :)

It's not in line with how all other "compatible" properties
are done though.

quoted

But the rapidio node doesn't know or care what the interrupts
are connected to, and neither should it.  That's what the
interrupt mapping recommended practice is for.

There are no rapidio device in it. Doorbell, msg are all parts of
rapidio controller.
For example, 8641 rapidio controller have 2 msg unit: msg0 and msg1.
They are not rapidio devices. Each msg unit has the tx_irq and rx_irq.

Ah, I think I understand what you mean now.  Yes, the binding
for this specific rapidio controller should define the _order_
of the interrupts in the "interrupts" property; but it cannot
define the format of the single entries, that is defined by
the interrupt controller node it is connected to already.

quoted

quoted

quoted

You want a #size-cells as well.

The size is not used in this sector, so no defined.

The size _is_ used; in the "ranges" property in this node,
for example.  It is also needed to describe the "reg" for
any child node of this node.

A non-existant "#size-cells" means 1, and "#address-cells"
means 2, so in principle you could do without these
properties; but Linux doesn't parse the tree correctly in
that case (which reminds me, I have some more patches to
send).

Ok, I'll add it in the next version for more religious.

It's not religious; true OF believers say leave the node
out if its value would be 1.  It's just that Linux doesn't
handle that properly yet, so you want to protect yourself :-)


Segher