On Sunday 28 August 2016, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 4:31:03 PM CEST Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> >> + ath9k@0,0 {
> >
> > According to the PCI binding, the name should be the same as the
> > compatible string here, or match the class code in the table.
> The original example was from an actual system (where an ath9k is
> connected to the PCIe bug). Unfortunately the PCIe driver contains
> some hacks, so I'm not sure if these values serve as a good example.
> Thus I took an example from a device where the ath9k chip is connected
> via PCI (no "express" - found in sysfs at:
> /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:00:0e.0):
> &pci0 {
> ath9k@168c,002d {
> compatible = "pci168c,002d";
> reg = <0x7000 0 0 0 0>;
> qca,disable-5ghz;
> };
> };
Ok, that would be a better example.
> >> + compatible = "pci168c,0030";
> >> + reg = <0 0 0 0 0>;
> >
> > Are the device/fn numbers all zero on your system? This is a bit
> > confusing, as it's not immediately clear what the reg properties
> > refers to. Also, I think the length should reflect the actual length
> > of the config space, either 0x100 or 0x1000.
> The first issue is solved with the updated example (see above).
> Where would the size go (is it the second-last or last value)?
The last one.
Arnd
