Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753408Ab3I0Bcn (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Sep 2013 21:32:43 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:43603 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751147Ab3I0Bcl (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Sep 2013 21:32:41 -0400 Message-ID: <1380245438.28561.86.camel@pasglop> Subject: Re: [dtc PATCH V2] Warn on node name unit-address presence/absence mismatch From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Stephen Warren Cc: Kumar Gala , Jon Loeliger , David Gibson , Olof Johansson , frowand.list@gmail.com, Tomasz Figa , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel list , Marek Szyprowski , Rob Herring , Grant Likely , Stephen Warren , Rohit Vaswani Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:30:38 +1000 In-Reply-To: <5244BF7A.4000100@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1379613263-32080-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <3D2FE31C-A6BB-4F70-9B3B-C55012CB56B3@codeaurora.org> <5244BF7A.4000100@wwwdotorg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1493 Lines: 36 On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 17:12 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > Well, ePAPR seems pretty specific that unit address and reg are > related, > but says nothing about ranges in the section on node naming, nor about > node naming in the section about ranges. > > I'd claim that the existing PPC trees are nonconforming, and should be > fixed too:-) This is tricky, we should probably fix ePAPR here. If you have a "soc" bus covering a given range of addresses which it forwards to its children devices but doesn't have per-se its own registers in that area, then it wouldn't have a "reg" property. I would thus argue that in the absence of a "reg" property, if a "ranges" one is present, the "parent address" entry in there is an acceptable substitute for the "reg" property as far as unit addresses are concerned. Also don't forget that in real OFW land, the unit address is something that's somewhat bus specific ... for example, PCI uses "dev,fn" rather than the full 96-bit number of the "reg" entry :-) Another option which would more strictly conform to ePAPR and in fact to of1275 would be to require such bus nodes to have a "reg" property with the address value set to the beginning of the range and the size value set to 0 :-) Cheers, Ben -- 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/