On 27.05.21 15:19, Jan Kiszka wrote: > From: Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> > > dev_read_addr_size() is inconsistent in too many ways. In particular, > it does not retrieve the correct address/size cell number from the DT. > dev_read_addr_size_index() does the right thing, so use that for now. > > This fixes reading the address size e.g. on boards with the 64-bit > AM65x where some pinctrl nodes only use 32-bit addresses and sizes. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > index ebb7602dde..2769b7a7fd 100644 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > @@ -509,7 +509,7 @@ static int single_of_to_plat(struct udevice *dev) > return -EINVAL; > } > > - addr = dev_read_addr_size(dev, "reg", &size); > + addr = dev_read_addr_size_index(dev, 0, &size); > if (addr == FDT_ADDR_T_NONE) { > dev_err(dev, "failed to get base register size\n"); > return -EINVAL; >
Oops, obsolete, 1e7879045f is doing that already. Jan -- Siemens AG, T RDA IOT Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
