2016-07-22 11:32 GMT+02:00 Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> On 21/07/16 21:10, Mirza Krak wrote:
>> 2016-07-21 11:56 GMT+02:00 Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>
>>> I wonder if it is worth mentioning that the chip-select specified in the
>>> "nvidia,config" prop should match that in the "ranges" prop unless you
>>> have some external decoding logic to provide an external chip-select.
>>> Which raises a question, what does the chip-select in the ranges
>>> actually represent? I am not sure if there is a common practice here for
>>> device tree when boards have external logic to provide additional
>>> chip-selects. I am sure this is quite common.
>>
>> I do not understand why CS pin setting in nvidia,config need to match
>> the "ranges" prop? Other then maybe cosmetics.
>
> Yes it would be cosmetic. That said, I even wonder if CS needs to be
> exposed at all given that they all map to the same CPU address space.
> Couldn't your binding for the CAN devices be as follows?
>
> nor@70009000 {
> ...
>
> can@48000000 {
> ...
> };
>
> can@48040000 {
> ...
> };
> };
This has also crossed my mind, maybe just get rid of the "ranges" prop
and do like you have above. But then again I do not know what is
preferred so I went with "ranges" prop initially.
>
> Problem is if you did have devices on different chip-selects then how
> would these be handled? They could not point to the same physical
> address. I am not sure if there is a way to do that in DT?
Having trouble following your though here. We do not have "different"
chip-selects?
Best Regards
Mirza
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
