On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 09:33:05AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> >> + Example:
> >> + [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> >
> > Shouldn't this be [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> its an example that has not basis is reality :)
But it should at least be internally consistent with this:
> >> + reg = <21300 4>;
[snip]
> > The DMA controller and the DMA channels need a "device-id", so that
> > they can be identified by number. Some peripherals, like the SSI,
> > can only use the controller and channel number. This is what I have
> > in my 8610 DTS:
>
> Why not use reg for this? I don't see any reason to add another
> "unique id" when there is already one.
A cell-index property would be useful here for indexing into the summary
status register.
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> > #address-cells = <1>;
> > #size-cells = <1>;
> > compatible = "fsl,mpc8610-dma", "fsl,mpc8540-
> > dma";
> > --> device-id = <0>;
I don't see any justification for having such a property in the parent node,
though.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
