From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: support an enumerated-bus compatible value Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:30:13 -0600 Message-ID: <500EF7C5.6060406@wwwdotorg.org> References: <4FF1C567.4060809@wwwdotorg.org> <4FF34EC2.6040908@wwwdotorg.org> <500EDD8A.2010701@wwwdotorg.org> <201207241848.53308.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201207241848.53308.arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, Mark Brown , Rob Herring List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 07/24/2012 12:48 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 24 July 2012, Stephen Warren wrote: >> >> That makes the child nodes' reg property slightly more complex since I >> don't get to elide the size cell, but does mean that we don't have to >> change anything (code or bindings) at all to make it work. I guess the >> lack of any ranges property within the top-level regulators node makes >> it clear enough that the bus/child address space is not part of the >> parent CPU's address space. > > One would think that, but the of_address handling code actually treats > empty ranges the same as missing ranges, in violation of the spec, > and as a workaround to deal with some powermac machines that required > this. > > I'd rather fix the code to deal with this correctly. OK, so what is correctly then? Adding an explicit enumerated-bus compatible value/node-type/binding seems like "correctly" to me, but it seemed like others didn't agree.