On 22/01/2016 17:35, Måns Rullgård wrote: > 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?
<confused> I thought that was the whole point of the v4 improvement?
