From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: support an enumerated-bus compatible value Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:48:53 +0000 Message-ID: <201207241848.53308.arnd@arndb.de> References: <4FF1C567.4060809@wwwdotorg.org> <4FF34EC2.6040908@wwwdotorg.org> <500EDD8A.2010701@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <500EDD8A.2010701-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Stephen Warren Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, Mark Brown , Rob Herring List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 24 July 2012, Stephen Warren wrote: > > That makes the child nodes' reg property slightly more complex since I > don't get to elide the size cell, but does mean that we don't have to > change anything (code or bindings) at all to make it work. I guess the > lack of any ranges property within the top-level regulators node makes > it clear enough that the bus/child address space is not part of the > parent CPU's address space. One would think that, but the of_address handling code actually treats empty ranges the same as missing ranges, in violation of the spec, and as a workaround to deal with some powermac machines that required this. I'd rather fix the code to deal with this correctly. Arnd