Hello,
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 01:09:50 +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> - bootrom {
> + bootrom@0 {
> compatible = "marvell,bootrom";
> reg = <MBUS_ID(0x01, 0x1d) 0 0x100000>;
I am still not sure whether this "0" unit address is correct compared
to the reg property being passed.
A good example of why I'm worried is the sa-sram case:
+ crypto_sram0: sa-sram0@0 {
compatible = "mmio-sram";
reg = <MBUS_ID(0x09, 0x09) 0 0x800>;
+ crypto_sram1: sa-sram1@0 {
compatible = "mmio-sram";
reg = <MBUS_ID(0x09, 0x05) 0 0x800>;
The node names should be just "sram" without a number. Indeed for UARTs
for example, you use uart@XYZ, uart@ABC and not uart0@XYZ and
uart1@ABC. But then, if you do that, with your scheme, you end up with
both nodes named sa-sram@0.
Which clearly shows that the way you set this unit-address is not
correct: those two devices are mapped at completely different
locations, but you end up with an identical unit address.
I have no idea what is the rule for setting the unit address in this
case, but I'm pretty sure the rule you've chosen is not good.
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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
