linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] ARM: DTS: da850: Add node for edma0

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]

Message-ID: <53DB314F.6060706@ti.com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:48:55 +0530
From:	Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
To:	Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	<robh+dt@...nel.org>
CC:	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	<davinci-linux-open-source@...ux.davincidsp.com>,
	<linux@....linux.org.uk>, <pawel.moll@....com>,
	<khilman@...prootsystems.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] ARM: DTS: da850: Add node for edma0

On Friday 01 August 2014 10:39 AM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> On 07/31/2014 05:26 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>> On 07/31/2014 02:18 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>>
>>> Add DT node for edma0.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 6 ++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> index b695548dbb4e..41ce4e8bf227 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>> @@ -150,6 +150,12 @@
>>>               };
>>>
>>>           };
>>> +        edma0: edma@...00000 {
>>> +            compatible = "ti,edma3";
>>> +            reg =    <0x0 0x10000>;
>>
>>    Why the mismatch between the unit-address part of the node name and the
>> "reg" property?
> 
> For some reason the whole da850 uses offset from 0x01c00000 for the SoC IPs.
> The nodes are under 'soc' and that has the ranges attribute.
> I do not really like this either.

There is no reason I can remember for why we chose to go the offset +
ranges way. Probably based it on an early OMAP example. Right now lets
keep it that way unless there is a big disadvantage.

Thanks,
Sekhar
--
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/