From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
To: James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>
Cc: linux-next <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
devicetree-discuss <devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Heads up on a device tree change
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:26:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130413192659.D92973E2249@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <511382AD.7030804@imgtec.com>
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 10:32:13 +0000, James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com> wrote:
> On 06/02/13 14:28, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:32 PM, James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com> wrote:
> >> On 06/02/13 13:11, Grant Likely wrote:
> >>> - Resources on platform_devices get registered so they appear in
> >>> /proc/iomem and /proc/ioports and so that device drivers get the added
> >>> protection of request_region. This will cause breakage on device trees
> >>> nodes with partially overlapping memory regions. (ie. 0x100..0x1ff and
> >>> 0x180..0x27f). I also have a workaround for this, but I doubt that it
> >>> will be necessary.
> >>
> >> Hi Grant,
> >>
> >> If I understand you correctly, the non-overlapping memory regions thing
> >> could be a problem for me. We have a Meta based SoC that has various SoC
> >> registers grouped together for doing GPIOs and Pin control things. I'm
> >> still in the process of converting it to device tree, but the way I've
> >> been handling it is to provide overlapping registers to both the gpio
> >> and pinctl DT nodes. Each GPIO bank's registers are also interleaved
> >> with the others, so I've been providing overlapping register ranges
> >> (offset by 4 for each bank) to the DT node for each gpio bank too, so
> >> each bank can function independently and the driver doesn't have to
> >> worry about multiple banks. Does that sound like a reasonable use case?
> >>
> >> I guess I could cheat with the length, or specify each register in it's
> >> own memory resource, but it seems like overkill.
> >
> > Note that overlapping regions are fine /provided/ that they are the
> > same size or one fits nicely inside another. It's partial overlap that
> > is a problem
>
> It still feels a bit artificial to impose that limitation on something
> that is supposed to be implementation independent. Having said that it
> doesn't particularly bother me having to work around it.
I've backed out on this. It broke too much.
g.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-13 19:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-06 13:11 Heads up on a device tree change Grant Likely
2013-02-06 13:32 ` James Hogan
2013-02-06 14:28 ` Grant Likely
2013-02-07 10:32 ` James Hogan
2013-04-13 19:26 ` Grant Likely [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130413192659.D92973E2249@localhost \
--to=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=james.hogan@imgtec.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rob.herring@calxeda.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).