On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 12:25 PM Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@xxxxxxx> wrote:
How do you know? I ask because usually the only way I have visibility
On 6/29/23 16:52, Rob Herring wrote:
This is mentioned in my previous reply for V9Hum, what's the property for? It's new in this version. Any DT property+ rp[i].child_addr[0] = j;It seems slightly confusing to use a "dynamic" property here when we
+ ret = of_changeset_add_empty_prop(ocs, np, "dynamic");
also have the OF_DYNAMIC dynamic flag above. I think they have
different meanings, don't they?
needs to be documented, but I don't see why we need it.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/af9b6bb3-a98d-4fb6-b51e-b48bca61dada@xxxxxxx/
As we discussed before, "interrupt-map" was intended to be used here.
And after thinking it more, it may not work for the cases where ppnode
is not dynamically generated and it does not have "interrupt-map".
For example the IBM ppc system, its device tree has nodes for pci bridge
and it does not have "interrupt-map".
there is when I break something. In traditional OpenFirmware, which
IBM PPC is, all PCI devices have a DT node because it's the firmware
telling the OS "these are the devices I discovered and this is how I
configured them".
Based on previous discussions, OF_DYNAMIC should not be used here.For the same reasons, I don't think the behavior should change based
on being dynamic. Now maybe the behavior when it's an ACPI system with
DT overlays has to change, but that's a problem for later. I don't yet
know if we'd handle that here somehow or elsewhere so that this node
looks like a normal DT system.
This should all work the same whether we've generated the nodes or
they were already present in the FDT when we booted.
So I think adding "dynamic" might be a way to identify the dynamicallyI hope not. The flags tend to be hacks.
added node. Or we can introduce a new flag e.g OF_IRQ_SWIZZLING.
Rob