Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 9 Jul 2022 12:29:15 +0530
From:   Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>,
        Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: Add lost ranges for timer
Message-ID: <20220709065915.GG5063@thinkpad>
References: <20220707160858.3178771-1-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20220707160858.3178771-1-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 09:08:58AM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> The timer node needs ranges specified to map the 1-cell children to the
> 2-cell address range used in /soc. This addition never made it into the
> patch that was posted and merged, so add it now.
> 
> Fixes: 152d1faf1e2f ("arm64: dts: qcom: add SC8280XP platform")
> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi
> index 2bdb42c88311..37a4cd6f85b6 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi
> @@ -1667,6 +1667,7 @@ timer@17c20000 {
>  			reg = <0x0 0x17c20000 0x0 0x1000>;
>  			#address-cells = <1>;
>  			#size-cells = <1>;
> +			ranges = <0 0 0 0x20000000>;

Even though this looks correct, I'm wondering why other SoCs are defining the
child addresses in 2 cells. I don't think the timer frames can go beyond 32bit
address space. Should we fix them too?

But for this patch,

Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>

Thanks,
Mani

>  
>  			frame@17c21000 {
>  				frame-number = <0>;
> -- 
> 2.35.1
> 

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்