Adds device tree and correspondent binding for ARM Corstone500 reference 
solution. 

Thanks for the comments, and sorry for the late reply. Most of the comments are
addressed except one.

@Krzysztof Kozlowski: Thanks a lot for the comments. I've tried to fixed all of 
them. Just have one question regarding having no dtsi or compatible platform.
Corstone500 is a reference hardware design, however there is no silicon solution
from it yet. And from device tree perspective, both FPGA and FVP (virtual 
platform) implementations are identical(same addresses and same nodes, etc.).
So we didn't want to create a seperate dtsi file. What would you recommend here
? Can you point me to a device tree from a similar platform?

Cheers,
Emek

Emekcan Aras (2):
  arm: dts: arm: add arm corstone500 device tree
  dt-bindings: Add Arm corstone500 platform

 .../bindings/arm/arm,corstone500.yaml         |  30 +++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile                    |   3 +-
 arch/arm/boot/dts/corstone500.dts             | 182 ++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 214 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,corstone500.yaml
 create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/corstone500.dts

-- 
2.25.1

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 12:32:42PM +0000, Emekcan Aras wrote:
> Adds device tree and correspondent binding for ARM Corstone500 reference 
> solution. 
> 
> Thanks for the comments, and sorry for the late reply. Most of the comments are
> addressed except one.
> 
> @Krzysztof Kozlowski: Thanks a lot for the comments. I've tried to fixed all of 
> them. Just have one question regarding having no dtsi or compatible platform.
> Corstone500 is a reference hardware design, however there is no silicon solution
> from it yet. And from device tree perspective, both FPGA and FVP (virtual 
> platform) implementations are identical(same addresses and same nodes, etc.).

Does the FVP support virtio devices? Other FVP models do.

> So we didn't want to create a seperate dtsi file. What would you recommend here
> ? Can you point me to a device tree from a similar platform?
> 
> Cheers,
> Emek
> 
> Emekcan Aras (2):
>   arm: dts: arm: add arm corstone500 device tree
>   dt-bindings: Add Arm corstone500 platform
> 
>  .../bindings/arm/arm,corstone500.yaml         |  30 +++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile                    |   3 +-
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/corstone500.dts             | 182 ++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 214 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,corstone500.yaml
>  create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/corstone500.dts
> 
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 
>

On 22/12/2022 13:32, Emekcan Aras wrote:
> Adds device tree and correspondent binding for ARM Corstone500 reference 
> solution. 
> 
> Thanks for the comments, and sorry for the late reply. Most of the comments are
> addressed except one.
> 
> @Krzysztof Kozlowski: Thanks a lot for the comments. I've tried to fixed all of 
> them. Just have one question regarding having no dtsi or compatible platform.
> Corstone500 is a reference hardware design, however there is no silicon solution
> from it yet. And from device tree perspective, both FPGA and FVP (virtual 
> platform) implementations are identical(same addresses and same nodes, etc.).
> So we didn't want to create a seperate dtsi file. What would you recommend here
> ? Can you point me to a device tree from a similar platform?

Corstone1000 was accepted that way, so it is fine. I am just surprised
that if you are going to have silicons with it, there is no common
compatible and no shared DTSI.

What do you expect from customer? Re-implement and copy most of your DTS?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

On 22/12/2022 13:32, Emekcan Aras wrote:
> Adds device tree and correspondent binding for ARM Corstone500 reference 
> solution. 
> 
> Thanks for the comments, and sorry for the late reply. Most of the comments are
> addressed except one.
> 
> @Krzysztof Kozlowski: Thanks a lot for the comments. I've tried to fixed all of 
> them. Just have one question regarding having no dtsi or compatible platform.

You still CC wrong addresses - at least mine, which suggests you base
your work on some old kernel.

Don't.

Please base on newest master, newest maintainer's tree or linux-next.

> 

Best regards,
Krzysztof