Hi Henry,
While reviewing the binding sent by Penny I noticed some inconsistency
with the one you introduced. See below.
On 07/09/2022 09:36, Henry Wang wrote:
+- xen,static-heap
+
+ Property under the top-level "chosen" node. It specifies the address
+ and size of Xen static heap memory. Note that at least a 64KB
+ alignment is required.
+
+- #xen,static-heap-address-cells and #xen,static-heap-size-cells
+
+ Specify the number of cells used for the address and size of the
+ "xen,static-heap" property under "chosen".
+
+Below is an example on how to specify the static heap in device tree:
+
+ / {
+ chosen {
+ #xen,static-heap-address-cells = <0x2>;
+ #xen,static-heap-size-cells = <0x2>;
Your binding, is introduce #xen,static-heap-{address, size}-cells
whereas Penny's one is using #{address, size}-cells even if the property
is not "reg".
I would like some consistency in the way we define bindings. Looking at
the tree, we already seem to have introduced
#xen-static-mem-address-cells. So maybe we should follow your approach?
That said, I am wondering whether we should just use one set of property
name.
I am open to suggestion here. My only request is we are consistent (i.e.
this doesn't depend on who wrote the bindings).
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
