From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755029Ab3HQWPx (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:15:53 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:44391 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754712Ab3HQWPw (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Aug 2013 18:15:52 -0400 Message-ID: <1376777376.25016.11.camel@pasglop> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] powerpc: refactor of_get_cpu_node to support other architectures From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Tomasz Figa Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Jonas Bonn , Michal Simek , Rob Herring , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Grant Likely Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 08:09:36 +1000 In-Reply-To: <2032060.4bgTKOdEX2@flatron> References: <1376586580-5409-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376674791-28244-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376674791-28244-2-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <2032060.4bgTKOdEX2@flatron> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > I wonder how would this handle uniprocessor ARM (pre-v7) cores, for > which > the updated bindings[1] define #address-cells = <0> and so no reg > property. > > [1] - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/260795 Why did you do that in the binding ? That sounds like looking to create problems ... Traditionally, UP setups just used "0" as the "reg" property on other architectures, why do differently ? Ben. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] powerpc: refactor of_get_cpu_node to support other architectures Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 08:09:36 +1000 Message-ID: <1376777376.25016.11.camel@pasglop> References: <1376586580-5409-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376674791-28244-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376674791-28244-2-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <2032060.4bgTKOdEX2@flatron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <2032060.4bgTKOdEX2@flatron> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Tomasz Figa Cc: Jonas Bonn , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Michal Simek , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Grant Likely , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > I wonder how would this handle uniprocessor ARM (pre-v7) cores, for > which > the updated bindings[1] define #address-cells = <0> and so no reg > property. > > [1] - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/260795 Why did you do that in the binding ? That sounds like looking to create problems ... Traditionally, UP setups just used "0" as the "reg" property on other architectures, why do differently ? Ben. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: benh@kernel.crashing.org (Benjamin Herrenschmidt) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 08:09:36 +1000 Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] powerpc: refactor of_get_cpu_node to support other architectures In-Reply-To: <2032060.4bgTKOdEX2@flatron> References: <1376586580-5409-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376674791-28244-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376674791-28244-2-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <2032060.4bgTKOdEX2@flatron> Message-ID: <1376777376.25016.11.camel@pasglop> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > I wonder how would this handle uniprocessor ARM (pre-v7) cores, for > which > the updated bindings[1] define #address-cells = <0> and so no reg > property. > > [1] - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/260795 Why did you do that in the binding ? That sounds like looking to create problems ... Traditionally, UP setups just used "0" as the "reg" property on other architectures, why do differently ? Ben.