[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACxGe6tVafwVN6vdU7sCxL5JM7+as0bp_AaHaGAyE9+eTgR5Tw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:54:36 -0600
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/24] C6X: devicetree
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 September 2011, Mark Salter wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 08:43 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > Are these instructions specific to the interrupt controller or
>> > do they access a register space that can contain arbitrary
>> > devices?
>> >
>> > If there is a separate address space for special devices, it might
>> > be good to describe that in the device tree, like we do for PCI
>> > I/O space.
>> >
>>
>> It is a core register area. Similar to ARM or MIPS coprocessor
>> registers.
>
> I guess it still depends, it's probably a grey area. If the register layout
> is the same on all c6x cores and it's only for core stuff, there is no need
> to put it in the device tree. If you have multiple soc (off-core) devices
> being controlled through the registers, or the numbers vary a lot between
> different chips, I would put all of them into the device tree.
It's an interrupt controller. There still needs to be a node to act
as the interrupt-parent and specify #interrupt-cells.
g.
--
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