>> More importantly, "reg-shift" doesn't say what part of >> the bigger words to access. A common example is byte-wide >> registers on a 32-bit-only bus; it's about 50%-50% between >> connecting the registers to the low byte vs. connecting it >> to the byte with the lowest address. > > We already have "big-endian" prop used in MPIC nodes, IIRC. Could > try to "reuse" it here as well...
Sure. This would be an okay way to handle legacy devices that are connected in inventive ways: add "reg-shift" and/or "big-endian" properties. We should make sure this is documented in the appropriate bindings though, don't just assume it will work. For non-legacy devices, please just use the "compatible" property to figure out the endianness etc.; it is a bad idea to make a "blablabla-big-endian" compatible value, but you can almost often just use a more specific model name instead; and typically the device has some other quirks anyway ;-) >> It would be nice to not name similar properties in the >> device tree dissimilarly. Kernel code doesn't come into >> the picture here. > > The "reg-shift" prop is yet unaccepted ad-hockery at this point. ;-) > So, I don't see why we have to be consistent with it. Don't treat your ad-hockery ad hoc, that way leads to insanity :-) It's quite important to use good names for all new properties you define, so you naturally end up with similar names for similar purposes. Of course it isn't a *requirement*, you're right about that. Segher _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev