On 23 April 2015 at 03:20, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Matthieu,
>
>> + main_funnel@20040000 {
>> + compatible = "arm,coresight-funnel", "arm,primecell";
>> + reg = <0 0x20040000 0 0x1000>;
>> +
>> + clocks = <&soc_smc50mhz>;
>> + clock-names = "apb_pclk";
>> + ports {
>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>> + #size-cells = <0>;
>> +
>> + port@0 {
>> + reg = <0>;
>> + main_funnel_out_port: endpoint {
>> + remote-endpoint =
>> + <&etf_in_port>;
>> + };
>> + };
>> +
>> + port@1 {
>> + reg = <0>;
>> + main_funnel_in_port0: endpoint {
>> + slave-mode;
>> + remote-endpoint =
>> + <&A57_funnel_out_port>;
>> + };
>> + };
>> +
>> + port@2 {
>> + reg = <1>;
>> + main_funnel_in_port1: endpoint {
>> + slave-mode;
>> + remote-endpoint = <&A53_etm0_out_port>;
>> + };
>> + };
>
> What's going on with these reg properties? They aren't matched with
> their nodes' unit-addresses, and the same reg is reused by multiple
> nodes. That doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Is the mismatch deliberate (against DT conventions), or is this
> mistaken?
Thanks for the review.
Coresight blocks have input and output ports and I use (and used [1])
the reg property to label the physical ports as found on device
itself. Above, "port@0" doesn't have a "slave-mode" property and as
such is output port "0".
"port@1" and "port@2" have a "slave-mode" property and thus are input
port "0" and "1", as indicated by their reg properly.
[1]. http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/arm/boot/dts/vexpress-v2p-ca15_a7.dts#L426
Mathieu
>
> Likewise for the other funnels.
>
> Mark
--
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
