Dear Thierry Reding,
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 20:12:27 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> Oh well. I don't like it, but if that's the way it has to be, then so be
> it.
I don't like it too much either, but it's not a big problem either. It
works, and satisfies the DT requirements reasonably.
> Any reason why the reg-names can't match the root port's node name
> so that it can be used directly instead of going through hoops to
> construct a string from extra parameters? Like below:
>
> pcie-controller {
> regs = <...>;
> reg-names = ..., "pcie@1,0", "pcie@2,0";
>
> pcie@1,0 {
> ...
> };
>
> pcie@2,0 {
> ...
> };
> };
Yes, I thought about doing this, but in my driver, I also use the
"pcie0.0" string to request the address decoding window from the
mvebu-mbus driver. So I would anyway have to construct this "pciX.Y"
string. But if you feel like using "pcie@X,Y" for the reg-names is
better even if I still need to construct the "pcieX.Y" string, then I
will be perfectly ok with making this change.
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
