On 06/21/2012 12:47 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: ... > Everybody seems to be happy with this approach, so I'll give it a > shot. There is one thing I'm still unsure about, though. What if > somebody uses the above scheme and maps the registers to the wrong > port. The same goes for the nvidia,ctrl-offset property. It needs > to match the register offset because they are directly related. I > suppose we could leave that property away and look up the register > via the port index (which, as Stephen already said, we'll have to > do in other places anyway, unless we list all bit positions in the > DT). > > Can we safely ignore such issues and assume the device tree to > always be right? Should we just not care if somebody uses it > wrongly? I think that's pretty much the same thing as plain putting the wrong reg property into any node - the value is wrong, so it doesn't work. There's not too much you can do about it. I'd be happy to remove the nvidia,ctrl-offset property to avoid the need to specify basically the same information multiple times though; nothing wrong with making it easier to write the correct DT content. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
