From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: tomasz.figa@gmail.com (Tomasz Figa)
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 00:22:43 +0200
Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] powerpc: refactor of_get_cpu_node to support
 other architectures
In-Reply-To: <1376777376.25016.11.camel@pasglop>
References: <1376586580-5409-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com>
 <2032060.4bgTKOdEX2@flatron> <1376777376.25016.11.camel@pasglop>
Message-ID: <6043373.ZgY5Yo1tNM@flatron>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Sunday 18 of August 2013 08:09:36 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > I wonder how would this handle uniprocessor ARM (pre-v7) cores, for
> > which
> > the updated bindings[1] define #address-cells = <0> and so no reg
> > property.
> > 
> > [1] - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/260795
> 
> Why did you do that in the binding ? That sounds like looking to create
> problems ...

[Copying Lorenzo...]

I'm not the author of the change. I was just passing by, while the 
question showed up in my mind. ;)

> Traditionally, UP setups just used "0" as the "reg" property on other
> architectures, why do differently ?

Right, especially since the ARM DT topology parsing code still considers a 
device tree without reg property in cpu node invalid.

Best regards,
Tomasz