From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: marc_gonzalez@sigmadesigns.com (Marc Gonzalez)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:24:14 +0100
Subject: [RFC PATCH v3] irqchip: Add support for Tango interrupt controller
In-Reply-To: <yw1xr3hcqlix.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
References: <569CE0F2.1060507@sigmadesigns.com>
 <569D0B80.1010908@sigmadesigns.com> <569D165E.4060004@sigmadesigns.com>
 <569FAFF5.4090909@arm.com> <yw1xr3hcqlix.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
Message-ID: <569FB4AE.8000506@sigmadesigns.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 20/01/2016 17:10, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:

> Marc Zyngier wrote:
> 
>>> +	if (of_property_read_u32(node, "reg", &ctl))
>>> +		panic("%s: failed to get reg base", node->name);
>>> +
>>> +	chip = kzalloc(sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> +	chip->ctl = ctl;
>>> +	chip->base = base;
> 
> As I said before, this assumes the outer DT node uses a ranges
> property.  Normally reg properties work the same whether they specify an
> offset within an outer "ranges" or have a full address directly.  It
> would be easy enough to make this work with either, so I don't see any
> reason not to.

IIRC, I was told very early in the review process that the ranges prop
was mandatory. Lemme look for it... It was Arnd:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/444131/focus=444207

> You are missing a ranges property that describes what address
> space these addresses are in.
>
> 'ranges;' would be wrong here, as the interrupt controller is
> not a bus. If you have no ranges property, the bus is interpreted
> as having its own address space with no relation to the parent bus
> (e.g. an I2C bus uses addresses that are not memory mapped).
> 
> Just list the addresses that are actually decoded by child
> devices here.

Did I misunderstand?

Regards.