Hello, On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 10:38:32 +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > >> > unit address? It doesn't have a 'reg' property if I remember > >> > correctly. > >> > >> But it has a range property. > > > > And? There are multiple ranges, and you randomly took the first one for > > the unit address of the soc node? > > Not randomly I followed the same rules that for the regs mentioned in > the ePAPR paragraph 2.2.1.1: > > "The unit-address should match the first address specified in the reg > property of the node." But it doesn't say anything about the ranges property. Isn't the dtc warning in fact over-zealous? The ePAPR says that the unit address should be the first address of the reg property, but doesn't say anything about the ranges property. What I dislike is that there absolutely nothing that forces the ranges to be written in this order. In another board, it can be written in a completely different order, which means that the unit address would be different, which is really silly. I continue to believe this rule doesn't make sense, and the soc node shouldn't have a unit address. Maybe Rob or Mark (who is not in Cc, for some reason?) should say a word about this? 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
