[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130926205808.GA3146@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:58:08 -0700
From: David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>
To: Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Rohit Vaswani <rvaswani@...eaurora.org>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>,
Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@...eaurora.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 2/3] ARM: msm: Add support for APQ8074 Dragonboard
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 02:33:53PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> "ePAPR 1.1 section 2.2.1.1 "Node Name Requirements" specifies that any
>> node that has a reg property must include a unit address in its name
>> with value matching the first entry in its reg property. Conversely, if
>> a node does not have a reg property, the node name must not include a
>> unit address."
>>
>> The soc node we have does not have a reg property ?
>
>Not 100% sure what people will decide on this. There are a number of
>examples on the PPC side (arch/powerpc/boot/dts) that are soc@...R,
>but they don't typically have "reg" properties at the soc level.
>
>Let's go ahead w/o the unit address (as you have it) for now.
What is the address even supposed to mean? Are we expecting multiple
'soc' nodes?
David
--
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