From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/13] ARM: dts: armada-375: Fixup soc DT warning Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 10:12:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20161118101248.784eff2b@free-electrons.com> References: <20161117230830.31047-1-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <20161117230830.31047-10-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <20161118095455.00bfe007@free-electrons.com> <87d1htb1qr.fsf@free-electrons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87d1htb1qr.fsf-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Gregory CLEMENT Cc: Jason Cooper , Andrew Lunn , Sebastian Hesselbarth , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Rob Herring , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 10:01:32 +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > >> + soc@f00100000000 { > > > > Where is this value coming from? Why does the soc node needs to have a > > It cames from the dts files. Where? > > unit address? It doesn't have a 'reg' property if I remember > > correctly. > > But it has a range property. And? There are multiple ranges, and you randomly took the first one for the unit address of the soc node? You realize that the ranges property is a list of ranges, and they could be in any order? Why would you pick the base address of one of the ranges rather than any of the others? I believe there is simply no unit address for the soc {} node. There is definitely one for the internal-regs {} node, but not for the soc {} node. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html