[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGngYiWBBe7P80ASQJnS8woe6SKLgNUmqKxOHMeyV1fGSCpY_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:38:07 -0500
From: Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Sven Van Asbroeck <svendev@...x.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, mark.rutland@....com,
Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
treding@...dia.com, David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
noralf@...nnes.org, johan@...nel.org,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>, michal.vokac@...ft.com,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
john.garry@...wei.com, geert+renesas@...der.be,
robin.murphy@....com, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
sebastien.bourdelin@...oirfairelinux.com, icenowy@...c.io,
Stuart Yoder <stuyoder@...il.com>, maxime.ripard@...tlin.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH anybus v4 6/7] dt-bindings: anybuss-host: document
devicetree binding
Rob, thank you so much for the review !
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:08 PM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> Unit-addresses are based on 'reg'. So this should either be '89' or
> based on a definition for the bus (e.g. PCI uses dev and func).
>
>> + reg = <0x0089>;
>
> Is fieldbus type how one addresses a device on the bus?
I'm afraid not. Anybus cards don't have an address, because only a single card
can be connected to an anybus at a time.
Fieldbus type defines the type/functionality of the connected card. Like pci
device ids.
The current patchset allows devicetree nodes to be provided depending on
the type of card connected to the bus. It identifies the card by type,
not location.
Is this not desired / allowed ?
> I'm still not clear what a bridge vs. host is. Both examples are on WEIM
> bus CS0?
I agree that the terminology is too confusing. I'm looking to change it.
Let's compare current anybus with a well-established bus architecture like pci:
pci anybus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common bus code (spec), pci/pci_driver.c fieldbus/anybuss-host.c
calls bus_register() must be parallel bus
subnode
no of compatible has of compatible
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Device on bus, calls
XXX_client_driver_register() hwmon/k8temp.c fieldbus/hms-profinet.c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controller, silicon driver pci/pcie-tango.c fieldbus/anybus-bridge.c
platform_driver calls platform_driver does not
pci_host_probe() register with anybus
I should probably rework this so it conforms more closely to the way it's done
on pci. Would the following look any better?
pci anybus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common bus code (spec), pci/pci_driver.c anybus/anybus_driver.c
calls bus_register() no of compatible no of compatible
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Device on bus, calls
XXX_client_driver_register() hwmon/k8temp.c fieldbus/hms-profinet.c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controller, silicon driver pci/pcie-tango.c anybus/arcx-controller.c
platform_driver calls platform_driver calls
pci_host_probe() anybus_host_probe()
Of course, the analogy is not perfect, as there can only be a single card
(device) connected to an anybus at a time.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists