From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: davidb@codeaurora.org (David Brown) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:58:08 -0700 Subject: [PATCHv4 2/3] ARM: msm: Add support for APQ8074 Dragonboard In-Reply-To: <50877C70-6066-4E87-9DEA-9F29D098525B@codeaurora.org> References: <1379992406-3541-1-git-send-email-rvaswani@codeaurora.org> <1379992406-3541-2-git-send-email-rvaswani@codeaurora.org> <4E7868D6-56CB-4AF8-8EBF-069966899C23@codeaurora.org> <5243652F.7090408@codeaurora.org> <52447779.3010908@codeaurora.org> <52448852.9050608@codeaurora.org> <50877C70-6066-4E87-9DEA-9F29D098525B@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <20130926205808.GA3146@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 02:33:53PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: >> "ePAPR 1.1 section 2.2.1.1 "Node Name Requirements" specifies that any >> node that has a reg property must include a unit address in its name >> with value matching the first entry in its reg property. Conversely, if >> a node does not have a reg property, the node name must not include a >> unit address." >> >> The soc node we have does not have a reg property ? > >Not 100% sure what people will decide on this. There are a number of >examples on the PPC side (arch/powerpc/boot/dts) that are soc at ADDR, >but they don't typically have "reg" properties at the soc level. > >Let's go ahead w/o the unit address (as you have it) for now. What is the address even supposed to mean? Are we expecting multiple 'soc' nodes? David