Hi Julien,
On 07/09/2022 13:36, Julien Grall wrote:
>
> 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).
>
In my opinion we should follow the device tree specification which states
that the #address-cells and #size-cells correspond to the reg property.
This would mean that for all the custom properties we introduce we need
custom address and size properties (just like for static-mem/static-heap).
~Michal
