On 10/29/2014 05:08 PM, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/29/2014 12:12 AM, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
+- reg : Base address and length of the GIC registers.
Also except for sead3, the base address should be properly reported by the
hardware. The size is fixed (for a specific version of GIC at least - which
is also reported by the hardware). So it would be nice to make this
optional.
Even though this is usually probable, I'd prefer to leave this as
required, or at least "optional, but recommended". I don't have a
very strong opinion on it though, but perhaps the device-tree folks
do?
The biggest advantage I can think of is that it can potentially make GIC
DT definition more shareable across for instance multiple revisions of
an SoC that might have the GIC at different base addresses.
I won't insist too much though.
