On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Rob Herring wrote:
On 08/16/2012 10:35 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Add a doc to describe the Xen ARM device tree bindings
Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com CC: devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org CC: David Vrabel david.vrabel@citrix.com
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/xen.txt | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/xen.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/xen.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/xen.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ec6d884 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/xen.txt @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +* Xen hypervisor device tree bindings
+Xen ARM virtual platforms shall have the following properties:
+- compatible:
- compatible = "xen,xen", "xen,xen-<version>";
- where <version> is the version of the Xen ABI of the platform.
+- reg: specifies the base physical address and size of a region in
- memory where the grant table should be mapped to, using an
- HYPERVISOR_memory_op hypercall.
+- interrupts: the interrupt used by Xen to inject event notifications.
You should look at ePAPR 1.1 which defines hypervisor related bindings. While it is a PPC doc, we should reuse or extend what makes sense.
See section 7.5:
https://www.power.org/resources/downloads/Power_ePAPR_APPROVED_v1.1.pdf
Thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of ePAPR.
The hypervisor node defined by ePAPR is not very different from what I am proposing. Should I try to be compatible with the hypervisor specification above (as in compatible = "epapr,hypervisor-1.1")? Or should I just use it as a reference for my own specification?
Personally I would rather avoid full compatibility with ePAPR.