linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/24] C6X: devicetree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:11:33 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/24] C6X: devicetree

On Tuesday 13 September 2011 11:54:36 Grant Likely wrote:
> >
> > 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.

I was talking about whether the interrupt controller node needs to have
a "regs" property or not. If the register space is similar to generic
MMIO registers, it should have one, like all other users of these
registers. If it's more like ARM's coprocessor extension, it probably
should not.

	Arnd
--
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/