On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 03:26:42PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 06:12:22PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > [...] > > > > This departs considerably from what I'm aiming right now. > > > > Are you suggesting to not put *any* mapping in the mbus 'ranges' node in > > the DT (other than internal-regs)? > > My view is that the ranges should be respected. If an address is > present, it should be used, unless there is a conflict. > > If no address is present (unclear why anyone would do this, but OK) > then demand allocate via the linux resource allocator through the > of_bus stuff seems reasonable to me.. > > Just to re-iterate Arnd's earlier comment: The DT representation > must handle dynamic allocation, but we can defer implementing the > kernel side until there is a need. > > It isn't clear to me there is a need..... >
Right. And just to confirm: this kernel side dynamic implementation will be completely independent of the MBus DT layout proposal. So I think it's best to agree on this binding first. I'll post a v2 with the progress I've made using the preprocessor. -- Ezequiel García, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering http://free-electrons.com _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
