On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Scott Wood <o...@buserror.net> wrote: > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 12:05 -0600, Li Yang wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Scott Wood <o...@buserror.net> wrote: >> > On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 17:07 -0600, Li Yang wrote: >> > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:36 AM, Raghav Dogra <rag...@freescale.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > The new IFC controller version 2.0 has a different memory map page. >> > > > Upto IFC 1.4 PAGE size is 4 KB and from IFC2.0 PAGE size is 64KB. >> > > > This patch segregates the IFC global and runtime registers to >> > > > appropriate >> > > > PAGE sizes. >> > > >> > > If the global registers and the runtime registers are so independent >> > > that they have to be on different page boundaries, it would make more >> > > sense for them to be defined as separate reg regions in the device >> > > tree at the very beginning. Then we would only need to change the >> > > device tree now and it would be future proof for any page size. >> > >> > That's great if you have a time machine. Otherwise, NACK. >> >> I didn't suggest that we need to change it now. But we might need to >> be more careful in the future when creating bindings for new hardware. > > At the time the binding was created there was no reason to believe that the > layout would change.
Probably separate blocks that intentionally start from a page boundary(with big gaps before it) would be a good idea? Regards, Leo _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev