Mark Rutland <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 05:24:14PM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote: >> On 20/01/2016 17:10, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> >> > Marc Zyngier wrote: >> > >> >>> + if (of_property_read_u32(node, "reg", &ctl)) >> >>> + panic("%s: failed to get reg base", node->name); >> >>> + >> >>> + chip = kzalloc(sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL); >> >>> + chip->ctl = ctl; >> >>> + chip->base = base; >> > >> > As I said before, this assumes the outer DT node uses a ranges >> > property. Normally reg properties work the same whether they specify an >> > offset within an outer "ranges" or have a full address directly. It >> > would be easy enough to make this work with either, so I don't see any >> > reason not to. >> >> IIRC, I was told very early in the review process that the ranges prop >> was mandatory. Lemme look for it... It was Arnd: >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/444131/focus=444207 > > I believe Arnd's point was that you need _a_ ranges property, rather > than specifically requiring an idmap/empty ranges property. > > As Marc pointed out, you can use of_iomap on the child nodes to map the > portions described by the reg properties, which will handle any > ranges-based translation automatically.
No, that's going to get ugly because the generic irqchip needs a single base address and some of the registers are shared (not part of the range specified in the child nodes). -- Måns Rullgård
