On 08/19/2013 05:19 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > 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. What exactly reg represents is up to the binding definition, but it still should be present IMO. I don't see any issue with it being different for pre-v7. Rob > > Thanks, > Mark. > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > -- 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
