archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Grant Likely <>
To: James Hogan <>
Cc: linux-next <>,
	Stephen Rothwell <>,
	devicetree-discuss <>,
	Rob Herring <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
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: <>

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 10:32:13 +0000, James Hogan <> wrote:
> On 06/02/13 14:28, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:32 PM, James Hogan <> 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.


      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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130413192659.D92973E2249@localhost \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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).