From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <48BDB68E.8040806@mlbassoc.com> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:56:30 -0600 From: Gary Thomas MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: DTS question Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Following on with my RTC problem, I cut&pasted this from the TQM5200 dts file: i2c@3d40 { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; compatible = "fsl,mpc5200-i2c","fsl-i2c"; reg = <0x3d40 0x40>; interrupts = <2 16 0>; interrupt-parent = <&mpc5200_pic>; fsl5200-clocking; rtc@68 { device_type = "rtc"; compatible = "dallas,ds1307"; reg = <0x68>; }; }; However, the dts file I started with had this (*mine*): i2c@3d40 { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; compatible = "fsl,mpc5200-i2c","fsl-i2c"; cell-index = <1>; reg = <3d40 40>; interrupts = <2 10 0>; interrupt-parent = <&mpc5200_pic>; fsl5200-clocking; }; Notice the different mix of hex (0xNNN) and implied hex values. This is really confusing to me. Even more so when I added the RTC snippet cut directly from the TQM5200 file: rtc@68 { device_type = "rtc"; compatible = "dallas,ds1307"; reg = <0x68>; }; This yielded a syntax error when merged with my platform dts. When I changed the 'reg=<0x68>' to 'reg=<68>', the syntax error went away & it worked perfectly. What gives? Why is explicit hex sometimes an error and sometimes not? Is the format of this file documented anywhere (I've not found it)? -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------