From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com (Ezequiel Garcia) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:14:37 -0300 Subject: [PATCH v3 10/12] ARM: mvebu: Relocate Armada 370/XP DeviceBus device tree nodes In-Reply-To: <20130618220929.GA24056@localhost> References: <1371554737-25319-1-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <1371554737-25319-11-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <201306181816.26530.arnd@arndb.de> <20130618220929.GA24056@localhost> Message-ID: <20130618221436.GB24056@localhost> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 07:09:29PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 06:16:26PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > > > > > > + devbus-bootcs { > > > + compatible = "marvell,mvebu-devbus"; > > > + reg = <0xffff0001 0x10400 0x8>; > > > + ranges = <0 MBUS_ID(0x01, 0x2f) 0 0xffffffff>; > > > + #address-cells = <1>; > > > + #size-cells = <1>; > > > + clocks = <&coreclk 0>; > > > + status = "disabled"; > > > + }; > > > > This is a violation of the binding as far as I can tell, since you don't specify ranges > > to access the 0xffff0001 0x10400 address. However, as I explained in my comment for > > the binding, I think you should clarify the binding and leave the implementation > > as you have it here. > > > > Mmm... again I got lost here. Which 'ranges' you say I don't specify to > access the (formerly) 0xffff0001? > Oh, maybe you meant I'm not specifying an mbus-node ranges translation in this same patch in this .dtsi file I'm modifying? In that case, that's on purpose to avoid the nightmare involved in mixing 'ranges' in per-board .dts files together with the ranges declared in each included .dtsi. By having only one mbus-node ranges property, per-board, it gets a bit simpler. -- Ezequiel Garc?a, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering http://free-electrons.com