On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 07:12:54PM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> The general syntax of a pathname component in OF is:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:args
Thanks for the insight!
> "unit-addr" is (the text representation of) the address for the
> node, in the parent's address space.
This statement sounds so good. But the current suggestion is:
+++ mainboard/pcengines/alix1c/dts (working copy)
@@ -22,26 +22,17 @@
+ [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
Enumerated "bus", just a list of devices. This is the first, addr 0.
+ [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
Another "device". Also addr 0. Can this really be right?
+ [EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
Within domain 0 a PCI device devfn 1,0. No problems.
+ [EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
Ditto devfn 15,0.
+ [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
This is quite different.
The unit-addr type depends not only on the parent node, but also on
the name of the new node. For pci nodes, unit-addr is a pci devfn
within domain 0. For lpc nodes (superio), it is an io port which
supposed also is within domain 0, but that isn't really the case
since ioports exist in a separate address space on x86, which isn't
even parallell to the PCI domain devfn space, but parallell even to
the domain space. (ie. global in the system)
What to do? Mixing-and-matching address spaces is confusing.
Maybe we can hack around it, and not have to implement three
dimensions in a two-dimensional tree just yet? :p
//Peter
--
coreboot mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
