On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On 09/26/2013 02:33 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >> >> On Sep 26, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Rohit Vaswani wrote: >> >>> On 9/26/2013 11:05 AM, Rohit Vaswani wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> I see the mail from Stephen Warren for adding a check stating that >>> >>> "ePAPR 1.1 section 2.2.1.1 "Node Name Requirements" specifies that >>> any node that has a reg property must include a unit address in its >>> name with value matching the first entry in its reg property. >>> Conversely, if a node does not have a reg property, the node name >>> must not include a unit address." >>> >>> The soc node we have does not have a reg property ? >> >> Not 100% sure what people will decide on this. There are a number of >> examples on the PPC side (arch/powerpc/boot/dts) that are soc@ADDR, >> but they don't typically have "reg" properties at the soc level. > > No, but you may have a ranges property which is related. > > I've just hit this on highbank in needing to add a second bank of > peripherals for midway. So my vote would be to have unit address. > > Rob So are we saying the rule for needing a unit-address being either 'reg' or 'ranges' ? - k -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of 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