On 07/24/2012 12:48 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 24 July 2012, Stephen Warren wrote: >> >> That makes the child nodes' reg property slightly more complex since I >> don't get to elide the size cell, but does mean that we don't have to >> change anything (code or bindings) at all to make it work. I guess the >> lack of any ranges property within the top-level regulators node makes >> it clear enough that the bus/child address space is not part of the >> parent CPU's address space. > > One would think that, but the of_address handling code actually treats > empty ranges the same as missing ranges, in violation of the spec, > and as a workaround to deal with some powermac machines that required > this. > > I'd rather fix the code to deal with this correctly.
OK, so what is correctly then? Adding an explicit enumerated-bus compatible value/node-type/binding seems like "correctly" to me, but it seemed like others didn't agree. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
