From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1472045838-22628-1-git-send-email-mirza.krak@gmail.com> <1472045838-22628-4-git-send-email-mirza.krak@gmail.com> From: Mirza Krak Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 21:54:47 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] dt/bindings: Add bindings for Tegra GMI controller To: Jon Hunter Cc: Stephen Warren , Thierry Reding , Alexandre Courbot , linux@armlinux.org.uk, pdeschrijver@nvidia.com, Prashant Gaikwad , Michael Turquette , sboyd@codeaurora.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 List-ID: 2016-08-24 17:56 GMT+02:00 Jon Hunter : + >> +Example with two SJA1000 CAN controllers connected to the GMI bus. We wrap the >> +controllers with a simple-bus node since they are all connected to the same >> +chip-select (CS4), in this example external address decoding is provided: >> + >> +gmi@70090000 { >> + compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-gmi"; >> + reg = <0x70009000 0x1000>; >> + #address-cells = <1>; >> + #size-cells = <1>; >> + clocks = <&tegra_car TEGRA20_CLK_NOR>; >> + clock-names = "gmi"; >> + resets = <&tegra_car 42>; >> + reset-names = "gmi"; >> + ranges = <4 0x48000000 0x7ffffff>; >> + >> + status = "disabled"; >> + >> + bus@4 { >> + compatible = "simple-bus"; >> + reg = <4>; >> + #address-cells = <1>; >> + #size-cells = <1>; >> + ranges = <0 4 0x40100>; > > Does this work? I tried to add an example like this and I got ... > > Warning (reg_format): "reg" property in /gmi@70009000/bus@4 has invalid > length (4 bytes) (#address-cells == 1, #size-cells == 1) Shoot, to get rid of the warning it should be reg = <4 0 >; But it works either way. > > I am wondering if we should just following the arm,pl172 example and > have ... > > cs4 { > compatible = "simple-bus"; > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <1>; > ranges; > > nvidia,snor-cs = <4>; > nvidia,snor-mux-mode; > nvidia,snor-adv-inv; > > can@0 { > reg = <0 0x100>; > ... > }; > > ... > }; > That means to go back to V1 really (almost :)). Which I do not mind. Will give it a test run. But I am a little hesitant if will be any better/cleaner. In your example above: can@0 { reg = <0 0x100>; ... }; Would this really translate correctly? In the pl172 example they have multiple ranges and address with "flash@0,0" which a range defined in parent node. "can@0" does not have valid match in parent node in our example. So I probably need add some more logic for it to properly translate. I have an idea which is following: gmi@70090000 { status = "okay"; #address-cells = <2>; #size-cells = <1>; ranges = <4 0 0x48000000 0x00040000>; cs4 { compatible = "simple-bus"; #address-cells = <2>; #size-cells = <1>; ranges; nvidia,snor-cs = <4>; nvidia,snor-mux-mode; nvidia,snor-adv-inv; can@0 { compatible = "nxp,sja1000"; reg = <4 0 0x100>; ... }; can@40000 { compatible = "nxp,sja1000"; reg = <4 0x40000 0x100>; ... }; }; }; Do not know if above will work at all (not able to test at current location), anyway I will play around with it some more and get back to you. Best Regards Mirza