On Mon, 6 Aug 2018, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 10:53 AM Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > section 2.3.5 of the spec seems contradictory:
> >
> > "The #address-cells and #size-cells properties are not inherited
> > from ancestors in the devicetree. They shall be explicitly defined.
> >
> > "A DTSpec-compliant boot program shall supply #address-cells and
> > #size-cells on all nodes that have children.
>
> That should be amended to "... that have children with 'reg'
> property".
ah, that makes more sense.
> > "If missing, a client program should assume a default value of 2
> > for #address-cells, and a value of 1 for #size-cells."
> >
> > those first two sentences clearly imply that those properties
> > *must* be explicitly defined, while the immediately following
> > sentence allows a client program to fill them in if they're
> > missing. that seems confusing.
>
> I'd guess the last sentence was put there because there were DT's in
> the wild which didn't have the properties. We can probably remove
> the last sentence. dtc has had a warning for this for ages.
>
> Interestingly, this isn't even the defaults the kernel uses. Both
> are 1 for all but Sparc.
i can submit a patch for that once i figure out how to word it,
unless someone way more competent than me wants to do it first. i will
defer to the smarter people here.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca/dokuwiki
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
