On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:09:36PM +0100, 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 ... > > Traditionally, UP setups just used "0" as the "reg" property on other > architectures, why do differently ? The decision was taken because we defined our reg property to refer to the MPIDR register's Aff{2,1,0} bitfields, and on UP cores before v7 there's no MPIDR register at all. Given there can only be a single CPU in that case, describing a register that wasn't present didn't seem necessary or helpful. Thanks, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
