>>>> + [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>>>> + reg = <0 0 0 0 0>;
>>>
>>> This looks kind of bogus...
>>
>> Its a PCIe to PCI bridge that is transparent.
>
> Right.... if it has no control registers, I think it should just lack
> 'reg', not define a zero-length register block.
"reg" for PCI config registers has length 0 always, it's defined that
way in the PCI binding.
But if this thing is transparent, it doesn't have PCI config regs.
>>>> + #size-cells = <2>;
>>>> + #address-cells = <3>;
>>>> + ranges = <02000000 0 80000000
>>>> + 02000000 0 80000000
>>>> + 0 20000000
>>>> + 01000000 0 00000000
>>>> + 01000000 0 00000000
>>>> + 0 00100000>;
>
> And if truly transparent, it should perhaps have just ranges;
> indicating that child addresses are identity mapped to parent
> addresses.
If truly transparent, the node should just not be there at all!
>>>> + [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>>>
>>> Ok.. why is pci_bridge nested within uli1575 - with the matching reg
>>> and ranges, it looks like they ought to be one device. Also if this
>>> is a PCI<->PCI bridge, I believe it shold have device_type = "pci".
>>
>> We've been using this as it stands for a while. If there are some
>> changes here that make sense I'm willing to make them.
>
> Right, at present I don't see why you couldn't just ditch the
> pci_bridge node, and drop its contents straight into the uli1575 node.
Yeah. The preferred name for PCI-to-PCI bridge nodes is simply "pci",
btw.
Segher
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
