Hello.
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> This doesn't mean that shift is better anyway. If everyone
>> considers it
>> better, I give up. But be warned that shift (stride) is not the only
>> property
>> characterizing register accesses -- the regs might be only accessible as
>> 16/32-bit quantities, for example (16-bit is a real world example -- from
>> Amiga or smth of that sort, IIRC).
> More importantly, "reg-shift" doesn't say what part of
> the bigger words to access. A common example is byte-wide
> registers on a 32-bit-only bus; it's about 50%-50% between
> connecting the registers to the low byte vs. connecting it
> to the byte with the lowest address.
We already have "big-endian" prop used in MPIC nodes, IIRC. Could try to
"reuse" it here as well...
> The only realistic way to handle all this is to put some
> knowledge into the device driver. This does of course
> also mean that no "reg-shift" property is needed; the
> device driver can look at your "compatible" property,
> instead.
>>>> Why the heck should we care about the UART code taling about IDE?!
>>> Consistency?
>> We're not obliged to be consistent with every piece of the kernel
>> code.
> It would be nice to not name similar properties in the
> device tree dissimilarly. Kernel code doesn't come into
> the picture here.
The "reg-shift" prop is yet unaccepted ad-hockery at this point. ;-)
So, I don't see why we have to be consistent with it.
> Segher
WBR, Sergei
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
