| Message ID | 1397228380-7352-3-git-send-email-l.stach@pengutronix.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 04:59PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote: > This is likely a copy-and-paste error from the > ARM GIC documentation, that has already been fixed. > > address-cells should have been set to 0, as with the size > cells. As having those properties set to 0 is the > same thing as not specifying them, drop them completely. Isn't this property inherited from the parent node, requiring to actually set them to 0 to comply with the docs? Thanks, Sören
Hi Sören, Am Freitag, den 11.04.2014, 08:54 -0700 schrieb Sören Brinkmann: > On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 04:59PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote: > > This is likely a copy-and-paste error from the > > ARM GIC documentation, that has already been fixed. > > > > address-cells should have been set to 0, as with the size > > cells. As having those properties set to 0 is the > > same thing as not specifying them, drop them completely. > > Isn't this property inherited from the parent node, requiring to > actually set them to 0 to comply with the docs? > No, it isn't. From ePAPR v1.1 section 2.3.5: "The #address-cells and #size-cells properties are not inherited from ancestors in the device tree. They shall be explicitly defined." Regards, Lucas
On Mon, 2014-04-14 at 02:53PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote: > Hi Sören, > > Am Freitag, den 11.04.2014, 08:54 -0700 schrieb Sören Brinkmann: > > On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 04:59PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote: > > > This is likely a copy-and-paste error from the > > > ARM GIC documentation, that has already been fixed. > > > > > > address-cells should have been set to 0, as with the size > > > cells. As having those properties set to 0 is the > > > same thing as not specifying them, drop them completely. > > > > Isn't this property inherited from the parent node, requiring to > > actually set them to 0 to comply with the docs? > > > > No, it isn't. From ePAPR v1.1 section 2.3.5: > "The #address-cells and #size-cells properties are not inherited from > ancestors in the device tree. They shall be explicitly defined." Thanks, you're right. I didn't know that document yet. I have some reading to do. Sören
On 04/11/2014 04:59 PM, Lucas Stach wrote: > This is likely a copy-and-paste error from the > ARM GIC documentation, that has already been fixed. > > address-cells should have been set to 0, as with the size > cells. As having those properties set to 0 is the > same thing as not specifying them, drop them completely. > > Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de> > --- > arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi > index 511180769af5..3f277c2bc19c 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi > @@ -57,7 +57,6 @@ > intc: interrupt-controller@f8f01000 { > compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-gic"; > #interrupt-cells = <3>; > - #address-cells = <1>; > interrupt-controller; > reg = <0xF8F01000 0x1000>, > <0xF8F00100 0x100>; > Applied. Thanks, Michal
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi index 511180769af5..3f277c2bc19c 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi @@ -57,7 +57,6 @@ intc: interrupt-controller@f8f01000 { compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-gic"; #interrupt-cells = <3>; - #address-cells = <1>; interrupt-controller; reg = <0xF8F01000 0x1000>, <0xF8F00100 0x100>;
This is likely a copy-and-paste error from the ARM GIC documentation, that has already been fixed. address-cells should have been set to 0, as with the size cells. As having those properties set to 0 is the same thing as not specifying them, drop them completely. Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de> --- arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)