On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The container node has a #address-cells property for this very reason. It's >> perfectly well-defined how to split up a property containing a large number >> of cells into separate values, by using the value of #address-cells. Plus, >> the canonical formatting (albeit not enforced by the DT compiler) for a >> property that contains an array of entries, each 2 cells in size, would be: >> >> reg = <0 0x1a>, <0 0x40>, <0 0x48>; >> >> rather than: >> >> reg = <0 0x1a 0 0x40 0 0x48>; >> >> ... so it's quite simple to make it very human-readable too. > > I give in to the flag idea. I also noticed that we'd need another flag > anyhow to mark 10 bit addresses. I am still thinking between using two > address-cells in that case (clean seperation between address and flags) > or to encode the flags as MSB in the current address (all busses will > have same address-cells and child description, less code paths and no > overhead in dtbs). Reading thru the thread, this seems good to me. I would go with adding flags in the MSB of the reg cell rather than adding a cell. Rob -- 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
