On 10/23, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/15, Linus Walleij wrote: > > >> +Required properties: > >> +- lock-offset: the offset address into the system controller where the > >> + unlocking register is located > >> +- vco-offset: the offset address into the system controller where the > >> + ICST control register is located (even 32 bit address) > > > > Is there any reason why we don't use a reg property for this? > > Usually reg = <> is used with two (or more) tokens: > > reg = <phys_addr size>; > > The exception being things like I2C addresses which > are just one token. > > Since in this case, there is a "mother" reg property in the > syscon-compatible node, which we are indexing into, > it is confusing to use the same name for subnodes. > > Also there is a bunch of precedents doing it like this > for sybdevices to system controllers, just > git grep offset Documentation/devicetree/bindings > will give you a bunch of them. > Ok. I'm no DT expert, but it seems odd to have subnodes without a reg property. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- 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
