Re: [PATCH v3 10/12] ARM: mvebu: Relocate Armada 370/XP DeviceBus device tree nodes
On Wednesday 19 June 2013, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 06:16:26PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
+ devbus-bootcs {
+ compatible = marvell,mvebu-devbus;
+ reg = 0x0001 0x10400 0x8;
+ ranges = 0 MBUS_ID(0x01, 0x2f) 0 0x;
+ #address-cells = 1;
+ #size-cells = 1;
+ clocks = coreclk 0;
+ status = disabled;
+ };
This is a violation of the binding as far as I can tell, since you don't
specify ranges
to access the 0x0001 0x10400 address. However, as I explained in my
comment for
the binding, I think you should clarify the binding and leave the
implementation
as you have it here.
Mmm... again I got lost here. Which 'ranges' you say I don't specify to
access the (formerly) 0x0001?
AFAIK, 'ranges' are only for children translation, which means I don't
need to specify a ranges for that in the devbus node, but in its parent,
right?
This ranges thing can be very tricky, so please correct me if I'm
mistaken.
You already clarified that the binding was wrong. This was about the
part where you replied:
Do you really want to require the child to provide a ranges property?
I think this makes it more complicated to specify devices that belong
into the internal-regs category.
No, this text is actually a left-over from the previous patchset, in
current v3 patchset MBus children are not required to have any ranges.
On the otherside, although you will need one except in the most trivial
cases like for the BootROM.
With that change, everything above is ok.
Arnd
___
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
Re: [PATCH v3 10/12] ARM: mvebu: Relocate Armada 370/XP DeviceBus device tree nodes
On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
+ devbus-bootcs {
+ compatible = marvell,mvebu-devbus;
+ reg = 0x0001 0x10400 0x8;
+ ranges = 0 MBUS_ID(0x01, 0x2f) 0 0x;
+ #address-cells = 1;
+ #size-cells = 1;
+ clocks = coreclk 0;
+ status = disabled;
+ };
This is a violation of the binding as far as I can tell, since you don't
specify ranges
to access the 0x0001 0x10400 address. However, as I explained in my comment
for
the binding, I think you should clarify the binding and leave the implementation
as you have it here.
Arnd
___
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
Re: [PATCH v3 10/12] ARM: mvebu: Relocate Armada 370/XP DeviceBus device tree nodes
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 06:16:26PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
+ devbus-bootcs {
+ compatible = marvell,mvebu-devbus;
+ reg = 0x0001 0x10400 0x8;
+ ranges = 0 MBUS_ID(0x01, 0x2f) 0 0x;
+ #address-cells = 1;
+ #size-cells = 1;
+ clocks = coreclk 0;
+ status = disabled;
+ };
This is a violation of the binding as far as I can tell, since you don't
specify ranges
to access the 0x0001 0x10400 address. However, as I explained in my
comment for
the binding, I think you should clarify the binding and leave the
implementation
as you have it here.
Mmm... again I got lost here. Which 'ranges' you say I don't specify to
access the (formerly) 0x0001?
AFAIK, 'ranges' are only for children translation, which means I don't
need to specify a ranges for that in the devbus node, but in its parent,
right?
This ranges thing can be very tricky, so please correct me if I'm
mistaken.
--
Ezequiel García, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com
___
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
Re: [PATCH v3 10/12] ARM: mvebu: Relocate Armada 370/XP DeviceBus device tree nodes
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 07:09:29PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 06:16:26PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
+ devbus-bootcs {
+ compatible = marvell,mvebu-devbus;
+ reg = 0x0001 0x10400 0x8;
+ ranges = 0 MBUS_ID(0x01, 0x2f) 0 0x;
+ #address-cells = 1;
+ #size-cells = 1;
+ clocks = coreclk 0;
+ status = disabled;
+ };
This is a violation of the binding as far as I can tell, since you don't
specify ranges
to access the 0x0001 0x10400 address. However, as I explained in my
comment for
the binding, I think you should clarify the binding and leave the
implementation
as you have it here.
Mmm... again I got lost here. Which 'ranges' you say I don't specify to
access the (formerly) 0x0001?
Oh, maybe you meant I'm not specifying an mbus-node ranges translation
in this same patch in this .dtsi file I'm modifying?
In that case, that's on purpose to avoid the nightmare involved in
mixing 'ranges' in per-board .dts files together with the ranges
declared in each included .dtsi.
By having only one mbus-node ranges property, per-board, it gets a bit
simpler.
--
Ezequiel García, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com
___
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
