On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 03:23:49PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Olof Johansson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Mark Rutland <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 05:28:22PM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Mark Rutland <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > Hi, > >>>> > > >>>> >> > + cpus { > >>>> >> > + #address-cells = <2>; > >>>> >> > + #size-cells = <0>; > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Why size-cells=2? Can you not fit a cpuid in 32 bits? > >>>> > > >>>> > As of commit 72aea393a2e7 (arm64: smp: honour #address-size when > >>>> > parsing > >>>> > CPU reg property) Linux can handle single-cell cpu node reg entries > >>>> > where /cpus/#address-cells = <1>. > >>>> > > >>>> > I can't make any guarantees about other code (e.g. bootloaders) which > >>>> > might try to do things with cpu nodes, YMMV. > >>>> > >>>> Ok. If address-cells is kept at 2 the unit address needs to be changed > >>>> to "0,0". So one or the other has to be changed. > >>> > >>> I'm happy either way. > >>> > >>> I'm not sure the rest of the tree had "0," prefixes on all of the > >>> unit-addresses for 64-bit addresses that were under 4GB, and I'm not > >>> sure that existing dts consistently do that either. > >>> > >>> Do we want to enforce that for all 64-bit unit-addresses? > >> > >> Yeah, I believe that's the only valid format for a 2-address-cell unit > >> address. > > > > But we don't do leading 0's anywhere else like single cell unit > > addresses. Buses expressed with ranges and offsets are one example. > > Also, I2C addresses have a 32-bit size in DT yet are only 8-bit and we > > don't do leading zero's there. > > Ok, I'm happily proven wrong here, also by confirming how this is done > on "real" OF. > > According to benh: > > 15:20 <benh> ojn: 0,0 is not quite right, it's supposed to be used > when the two numbers are different things, like device,fn on PCI > > The same is true for >2^32 unit addresses, they just use the one > integer instead of x,y. > > So, I take back all I've said on this in the last 72 hours. :) It > looks like we might need to revisit some of the 32-bit DTs. Simon, > drop the series you had. :)
Thanks will do. Is the way forward for me to apply my original patch to change memory@180000000 to memory@140000000? And abandon all the ',' only changes?This one: This is the original patch: From: Simon Horman <[email protected]> [PATCH] ARM: shmobile: lager: correct memory map The base address of the second memory region on the lager board is 0x140000000. Update the tag used in the dts file accordingly. This is a documentation fix and should have no run-time affect. This problem was introduced when the second memory region was added to the lager dts file by 62bc32a2573c4219 ("ARM: shmobile: Include all 4 GiB of memory on Lager)" in v3.14. Reported-by: NAOYA SHIIBA <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]> --- arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7790-lager.dts | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7790-lager.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7790-lager.dts index 0118cbf..84dcafa 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7790-lager.dts +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7790-lager.dts @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ reg = <0 0x40000000 0 0x40000000>; }; - memory@180000000 { + memory@140000000 { device_type = "memory"; reg = <1 0x40000000 0 0xc0000000>; }; -- 2.0.1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
