[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180807072034.GA569@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 09:20:34 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: atish.patra@....com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: RISC-V PLIC
documentation
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 02:59:48PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > +Required properties:
> > > +- compatible : "sifive,plic0"
> > > +- #address-cells : should be <0>
> > > +- #interrupt-cells : should be <1>
> > > +- interrupt-controller : Identifies the node as an interrupt controller
> > > +- reg : Should contain 1 register range (address and length)
> >
> > The one in the real device tree has two entries.
> > reg = <0x00000000 0x0c000000 0x00000000 0x04000000>;
> >
> > Is it intentional or just incorrect entry left over from earlier days?
>
> > > + reg = <0xc000000 0x4000000>;
>
> Looks to me like one has #size-cells and #address-cells set to 2 and
> the example is using 1.
Yes. And it seems like the real life device tree is simply bogus.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists