Marc Gonzalez <[email protected]> writes: > 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?
Why would you want to do that? -- Måns Rullgård
