[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1315869636.11280.26.camel@deneb.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:20:35 -0400
From: Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/24] C6X: devicetree
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 14:11 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 05:26:41PM -0400, Mark Salter wrote:
> > + interrupt-controller;
> > + #interrupt-cells = <1>;
> > + compatible = "ti,c64x+core-pic";
>
> The interrupt controller isn't addressable? Is it integrated into
> the CPU?
Yes, that core controller is controlled through registers accessed
with special-purpose instructions, not MMIO. Other controllers, like
megamodule and some as-yet unimplemented use MMIO.
>
> > + };
> > +
> > + soc@...00000 {
>
> "soc@...0000" to match the 'reg' property of this node.
Okay, I think I need a separate node for that reg property. The SoC
address space does actually start at 0. The registers in that reg
property are "SoC-level" registers holding silicon revision, pin
strap status, etc. All of the SoCs have a "device state config"
node which have registers like that. Instead of having them in the
device state block, this SoC has them in a separate area. I just
got lazy and put them the reg property in the soc node, but I think
it really calls for a separate node.
--Mark
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists