On Nov 21, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> 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>;
ahh, i see.. yes I'll fix that.
> [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.
Divide by 0x80.
>>> [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.
huh?
- k
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
