Use a vendor name rather than "x86" here.
"Atom" would benefit from being more precise, like adding the model
number. Also you want some properties there defining maybe the mask, the
cache characteristics, etc... There's an exising OFW binding for x86, I
suppose you could follow it. A "reg" property at least is mandatory
here.
Also how do you plan to expose threading capability ?
You probably also want some linkage from the processor to the local APIC
no ?
What are those phys-reg properties ? Also APICs have some kind od
versionning, they aren't all identical, so your compatible property
needs to be more precise at least.
All HPETs are identical ? If not, make your compatible property more
precise or if they are generally compatible from a programmer
perspective, use two entries from more generic to more specific, for
example:
compatible = "intel,hpet","intel,hpet-atom-XXYY"
(or make up a numbering/naming scheme that makes sense for Intel gear)
So ISA isn't a child of "atom"... that makes "atom" a bit strange as a
node, tho not a big deal per se. I suppose it represent the on-die
peripherals but then you need at least some linkage between that and
the /cpus nodes.
What does "simple-bus" means ? ISA has a well defined binding, you
should follow it.
I think the ISA binding mandate the use of the PNP codes in the
compatible properties, doesn't it ? At least that's the common usage
pattern I've seen so far on powerpc.
Also, "ctrl_reg" and "freq_reg" follow an existing binding ? If not,
then I'd suggest you use "-" instead of "_" which is more common in OFW
land and use more descriptive names since "reg" has a meaning of its own
and the above is a bit confusing.
Here you define a PCI bus with a child device that isn't PCI from what I
can tell, tho the "reg" property content is confusing, and then there's
a unit address that doesn't match "reg" and a "phys_reg" (what the heck
is that ?) that matches the unit-address. Care to explain a bit
more ? :-) I suspect that isn't the right way to represent the secondary
APIC
Also same comments about the compatible property.
I notice that the interrupt number isn't part of your mask, is that
expected ? If you decide to make it so, remember that INT_A is 1 not 0
iirc (dbl check maybe ? I think that's how it is :-)
OFW PCI binding, which we follow, mandates an "assigned-addresses"
property, tho I suppose that if you haven't assigned anything yet (and
will let Linux do so) the above is kosher. Your "reg" is a bit odd but I
don't have time to dbl check vs. the binding right now.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
