On Tuesday 23 September 2014 17:45:52 Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > For reference, this is what we have for MVEBU SoCs with multiple ports > per controller: > > eth: ethernet-ctrl@72000 { > compatible = "marvell,orion-eth"; > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <0>; > reg = <0x72000 0x4000>; > clocks = <&gate_clk 2>; > marvell,tx-checksum-limit = <1600>; > status = "disabled"; > > ethernet-port@0 { > compatible = "marvell,orion-eth-port"; > reg = <0>; > interrupts = <29>; > /* overwrite MAC address in bootloader */ > local-mac-address = [00 00 00 00 00 00]; > phy-handle = <ðphy>; > }; > }; > > mdio: mdio-bus@72004 { > compatible = "marvell,orion-mdio"; > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <0>; > reg = <0x72004 0x84>; > interrupts = <30>; > clocks = <&gate_clk 2>; > status = "disabled"; > ethphy: ethernet-phy { > /* set phy address in board file */ > }; > }; >
But in this example, you have the same registers and the same clocks in two nodes, which are even used by the same device driver at the moment. It's not a big issue, but my feeling is that Antoine's approach was actually better because it more closely reflects the way that the hardware is built. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/