Re: [PATCHv4 2/3] ARM: msm: Add support for APQ8074 Dragonboard

[Kumar Gala <galak-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org>]

On Sep 26, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Rohit Vaswani wrote:

> On 9/26/2013 11:05 AM, Rohit Vaswani wrote:
>> On 9/26/2013 9:37 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> <snip>
>> 
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-apq8074-dragonboard.dts
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
>>> +/include/ "qcom-msm8974.dtsi"
>>> +
>>> +/ {
>>> +    model = "Qualcomm APQ8074 Dragonboard";
>>> +    compatible = "qcom,apq8074-dragonboard", "qcom,apq8074";
>>> +};
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..f04b643
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
>>> +/dts-v1/;
>>> +
>>> +/include/ "skeleton.dtsi"
>>> +
>>> +/ {
>>> +    model = "Qualcomm MSM8974";
>>> +    compatible = "qcom,msm8974";
>>> +    interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
>>> +
>>> +    soc: soc { };
>>>>> We should have a unit address here:
>>>>> 
>>>>>      soc: soc@FOOBAR {
>>>>> 
>>>>> also, split out the curly braces so any future patches do have to muck with that.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    };
>>>>> 
>>>> Im not sure I understand the reasoning behind the unit address for soc ?
>>> Its fairly standard practice and there is a fair amount of discussion about the lack of a unit address for memory nodes.
>>> 
>> That still doesn't really answer anything :) - and I couldn't find any discussions about this either.
>> I don't see anybody in upstream adding an address to soc except sun.
>> What is that address supposed to be for - what does it mean ?
>> The soc is way of encapsulating meaningful blocks  for the particular SoC.
> 
> I see the mail from Stephen Warren for adding a check stating that
> 
> "ePAPR 1.1 section 2.2.1.1 "Node Name Requirements" specifies that any
> node that has a reg property must include a unit address in its name
> with value matching the first entry in its reg property. Conversely, if
> a node does not have a reg property, the node name must not include a
> unit address."
> 
> The soc node we have does not have a reg property ?

Not 100% sure what people will decide on this.  There are a number of examples on the PPC side (arch/powerpc/boot/dts) that are soc@ADDR, but they don't typically have "reg" properties at the soc level.

Let's go ahead w/o the unit address (as you have it) for now.

- k

-- 
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html