On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:46:54PM -0600, Eddie James wrote:
From: "Edward A. James" <eajames@xxxxxxxxxx>reg should be how the parent (SBEFIFO) addresses this device. Would all
Document the bindings for the P9 OCC device. OCC devices are accessed
through the SBEFIFO.
Signed-off-by: Edward A. James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 18 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..79094f5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/fsi/ibm,p9-occ.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+Device-tree bindings for P9 On-Chip Controller
+----------------------------------------------
+
+The POWER9 On-Chip Controller is accessed through the SBEFIFO. All OCC nodes
+must be child nodes of SBEFIFO devices (see ibm,p9-sbefifo.txt).
+
+Required properties:
+ - compatible = "ibm,p9-occ";
+
+Optional properties:
+ - reg = <processor index>; : Index for the processor this OCC is on.
of these child devices be a unique processor?
I think a phandle to the cpu node would be more appropriate here.
+
+Examples:
+
+ occ@1 {
+ compatible = "ibm,p9-occ";
+ reg = <1>;
+ };
--
1.8.3.1