On Friday 01 August 2014 10:39 AM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> On 07/31/2014 05:26 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>> On 07/31/2014 02:18 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>>
>>> Add DT node for edma0.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfal...@ti.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 6 ++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> index b695548dbb4e..41ce4e8bf227 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> @@ -150,6 +150,12 @@
>>> };
>>>
>>> };
>>> + edma0: edma@01c00000 {
>>> + compatible = "ti,edma3";
>>> + reg = <0x0 0x10000>;
>>
>> Why the mismatch between the unit-address part of the node name and the
>> "reg" property?
>
> For some reason the whole da850 uses offset from 0x01c00000 for the SoC IPs.
> The nodes are under 'soc' and that has the ranges attribute.
> I do not really like this either.
There is no reason I can remember for why we chose to go the offset +
ranges way. Probably based it on an early OMAP example. Right now lets
keep it that way unless there is a big disadvantage.
Thanks,
Sekhar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
