2016-08-26 9:25 GMT+02:00 Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> On 26/08/16 05:53, Mirza Krak wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> I have an idea which is following:
>>>
>>> gmi@70090000 {
>>> status = "okay";
>>> #address-cells = <2>;
>>> #size-cells = <1>;
>>> ranges = <4 0 0x48000000 0x00040000>;
>>>
>>> cs4 {
>>> compatible = "simple-bus";
>>> #address-cells = <2>;
>>> #size-cells = <1>;
>>> ranges;
>>>
>>> nvidia,snor-cs = <4>;
>>> nvidia,snor-mux-mode;
>>> nvidia,snor-adv-inv;
>>>
>>> can@0 {
>>> compatible = "nxp,sja1000";
>>> reg = <4 0 0x100>;
>>> ...
>>> };
>>>
>>>
>>> can@40000 {
>>> compatible = "nxp,sja1000";
>>> reg = <4 0x40000 0x100>;
>>> ...
>>> };
>>> };
>>> };
>>>
>>> Do not know if above will work at all (not able to test at current
>>> location), anyway I will play around with it some more and get back to
>>> you.
>>
>> Gave above a test run and it works like a charm. Are we happy with that?
>
> Does it not work with #address-cells = <1>? Seems odd to have the cs in
> the reg for the device.
>
No it does not work with #address-cells = <1> with the current
structure that we have.
With #address-cells = <2>, we can state that this device is on
chip-select 4 and on this specific offset of chip-select 4 (that is
the second address cell). I do not see how we can specify this with
only one address cell.
And is it really that odd? Looking at other drivers they all use the
same metod, even the arm,pl172 that you where referring to as a base
for our implementation.
Best Regards
Mirza
--
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
