On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 09:09:15AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 06/11/2022 15:45, Jonathan Neuschäfer wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 10:38:45AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: [...] > >> This is rather obvious, so what you should comment is WHY or WHEN second > >> resource can be omitted. > > > > Ok, I'll add more reasoning, which is basically: The "memory" mapping is > > only an optimization for faster access, knowledge of it is not necessary > > for full operation of the device. > > > >> Not every instance on the hardware has it? > > > > AFAIK every instance has it, and there's unlikely to be any variation on > > this fact anymore, because newer Nuvoton SoCs replaced the FIU with a > > redesigned and incompatible version. > > > > I admit that the value of making the "memory" mapping optional is rather > > theoretical, and I'm open to making this reg item mandatory to simplify > > the binding. > > If every instance has it, then regardless whether it is actually used or > not, just require second address? Alright, I'll do that. Thanks, Jonathan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
