On 20/01/2016 19:09, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Marc Gonzalez <[email protected]> writes: > >> On 20/01/2016 17:38, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> >>> Marc Gonzalez <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> On 20/01/2016 17:25, Måns Rullgård wrote: >>>> >>>>> Marc Zyngier <[email protected]> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 20/01/16 16:10, Måns Rullgård wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Marc Zyngier <[email protected]> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yup, that is a good point. I guess Marc can address this in the next >>>>>> round, since we need a DT binding anyway. >>>>> >>>>> I'd suggest using of_address_to_resource() on both nodes and subtracting >>>>> the start addresses returned. >>>> >>>> For my own reference, Marc Zyngier suggested: >>>> "you should use of_iomap to map the child nodes, and not mess with >>>> the parent one." >>> >>> That's going to get very messy since the generic irqchip code needs all >>> the registers as offsets from a common base address. >> >> The two suggestions are over my head at the moment. >> >> Do you want to submit v4 and have Marc Z take a look? > > Done. If this isn't acceptable either, I'm out of ideas that don't end > up being far uglier than anything suggested so far.
With your latest patch, can I drop the ranges property? Regards.
