From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>
Received: from imap.sh.mvista.com (unknown [63.81.120.155])
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EED567B7A
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Sat, 23 Sep 2006 05:36:23 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <45143B2B.7060501@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 23:36:11 +0400
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Mark A. Greer" <mgreer@mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Start arch/powerpc/boot code reorganization
References: <20060920012042.GA28489@mag.az.mvista.com>	<1158721828.3043.13.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org>	<A6FD3E5E-94EF-4E12-A0FB-8700F0DF8151@kernel.crashing.org>	<1158787957.6002.307.camel@localhost.localdomain>	<20060920215738.GC24809@mag.az.mvista.com>	<C2AFCB31-CFC2-4B0E-ADAE-380A612D1053@kernel.crashing.org>	<20060921133707.GA29137@gate.crashing.org>	<1CA5168F-9ECA-4AA2-92AE-F86579245855@kernel.crashing.org>	<20060922012408.GA13820@mag.az.mvista.com>	<9F654F4A-B344-4374-8BDC-77FB0DDAFDCC@kernel.crashing.org>
	<20060922185923.GB25738@mag.az.mvista.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060922185923.GB25738@mag.az.mvista.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Cc: Matt Porter <mporter@embeddedalley.com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

Hello.

Mark A. Greer wrote:

> Here is where I think we are for getting the effective base addr
> of the regs for the console uart in the bootwrapper:

> 1) We add the "fw,address" property to the uart's dt node.  That
> property provides the effective base address of the uart's registers
> left over by the firmware.  The format is similar to that of the
> "reg" property in that it contains an "address size" tuple.

> 2) The effective address width (32 or 64 bits) (i.e., the # cells in
> the "address" portion of the tuple) is indicated by the presence of the
> "/cpus/64-bit" property.  If it exists, the effective addr space is
> 64-bits wide (2 cells); if not, its 32-bits wide (1 cell).
> 
> 3) The number of cells in the "size" portion of the tuple is indicated
> by the nearest #size-cells as you go up the tree.  Just like the "reg"
> property.

    Well, is there need for duplication of size if "reg" prop must be present 
anyway?

WBR, Sergei