Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751204Ab3HSKUM (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 06:20:12 -0400 Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:38922 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750808Ab3HSKUK (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 06:20:10 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:19:22 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Tomasz Figa , Jonas Bonn , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Michal Simek , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Sudeep KarkadaNagesha , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] powerpc: refactor of_get_cpu_node to support other architectures Message-ID: <20130819101922.GI3719@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1376586580-5409-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376674791-28244-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376674791-28244-2-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <2032060.4bgTKOdEX2@flatron> <1376777376.25016.11.camel@pasglop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1376777376.25016.11.camel@pasglop> Thread-Topic: [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] powerpc: refactor of_get_cpu_node to support other architectures Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1139 Lines: 28 On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:09:36PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > I wonder how would this handle uniprocessor ARM (pre-v7) cores, for > > which > > the updated bindings[1] define #address-cells = <0> and so no reg > > property. > > > > [1] - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/260795 > > Why did you do that in the binding ? That sounds like looking to create > problems ... > > Traditionally, UP setups just used "0" as the "reg" property on other > architectures, why do differently ? The decision was taken because we defined our reg property to refer to the MPIDR register's Aff{2,1,0} bitfields, and on UP cores before v7 there's no MPIDR register at all. Given there can only be a single CPU in that case, describing a register that wasn't present didn't seem necessary or helpful. Thanks, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/