Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] docs, xen/arm: Introduce static heap memory

[Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>]

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