On 9/26/2013 9:37 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
<snip>
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8074-dragonboard.dts
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+/include/ "qcom-msm8974.dtsi"
+
+/ {
+ model = "Qualcomm APQ8074 Dragonboard";
+ compatible = "qcom,apq8074-dragonboard", "qcom,apq8074";
+};
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f04b643
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+/dts-v1/;
+
+/include/ "skeleton.dtsi"
+
+/ {
+ model = "Qualcomm MSM8974";
+ compatible = "qcom,msm8974";
+ interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
+
+ soc: soc { };
We should have a unit address here:
soc: soc@FOOBAR {
also, split out the curly braces so any future patches do have to muck with that.
};
Im not sure I understand the reasoning behind the unit address for soc ?
Its fairly standard practice and there is a fair amount of discussion about the lack of a unit address for memory nodes.
That still doesn't really answer anything :) - and I couldn't find any
discussions about this either.
I don't see anybody in upstream adding an address to soc except sun.
What is that address supposed to be for - what does it mean ?
The soc is way of encapsulating meaningful blocks for the particular SoC.
+};
+
+&soc {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <1>;
+ ranges;
+ compatible = "simple-bus";
+
+ intc: interrupt-controller@f9000000 {
+ compatible = "qcom,msm-qgic2";
+ interrupt-controller;
+ #interrupt-cells = <3>;
+ reg = <0xf9000000 0x1000>,
+ <0xf9002000 0x1000>;
+ };
+
+ timer {
+ compatible = "arm,armv7-timer";
+ interrupts = <1 2 0xf08>,
+ <1 3 0xf08>,
+ <1 4 0xf08>,
+ <1 1 0xf08>;
+ clock-frequency = <19200000>;
+ };
+};
- k
Thanks,
Rohit Vaswani
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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
