From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:12:23 +0200 Subject: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH v5 1/3] Documentation: dt: net: add ath9k wireless device binding In-Reply-To: References: <20160709232834.31654-1-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> <2913835.hr5kg63Vcv@wuerfel> Message-ID: <201608291412.23530.arnd@arndb.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org On Sunday 28 August 2016, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 4:31:03 PM CEST Martin Blumenstingl wrote: > >> + ath9k at 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 at 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