On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 06:51:04PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> address-permutation = <0 1 3 2 4 5 7 6 e f d c a b 9 8>;
> >
> > Yes, I was contemplating something like that.
>
> Let's not define this until we need it though :-)
Indeed.
> >> I haven't heard or thought of anything better either. Using "ranges"
> >> is conceptually wrong, even ignoring the technical problems that come
> >> with it.
> >
> > Why is "ranges" conceptually wrong?
>
> The flash partitions aren't separate devices sitting on a
> "flash bus", they are "sub-devices" of their parent.
Well, yes, but nonetheless the partitions show up as part of the
overall physical address space. How do you encode that other than in
'ranges'?
> > To be honest this looks rather to me like another case where having
> > overlapping 'reg' and 'ranges' would actually make sense.
>
> It never makes sense. You should give the "master" device
> the full "reg" range it covers, and have it define its own
> address space; "sub-devices" can carve out their little hunk
> from that. You don't want more than one device owning the
> same address range in the same address space.
Why not? After all, the physical address ranges of the flash
partitions really do overlap with that of the flash device as a whole.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
