On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 01:43:52PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
> device_type = "board-control";
> reg = <3 0 00000020>;
> };
No device_type. Needs a compatible.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
> reg = <4 0 00010000>;
> };
> };
>
> The fourth device is a FPGA that contains several IP cores such as an
> interrupt controller and a SD/MMC host controller. If I understand things
> correctly, each IP core should have its own node in the device tree to allow
> proper binding with device drivers.
Correct.
> As booting-without-of.txt describes the localbus node ranges as
> corresponding to a single chipselect and covering the entire chipselect
> access window, I can't have nodes for each IP core as children of the
> localbus node.
That does not follow. The ranges entry has to cover the whole chipselect,
but there's no one-to-one correspondence between nodes and ranges entries.
There's nothing wrong with doing this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
compatible = "foo,bar";
reg = <4 0 00010000>;
};
[EMAIL PROTECTED],10000 {
compatible = "foo,baz";
reg = <4 00010000 00010000>;
};
[EMAIL PROTECTED],20000 {
compatible = "foo,blah";
reg = <4 00020000 00010000>;
};
> Should I put IP core nodes as children of the FPGA node ?
You could do that as well.
> If so, how do I map addresses at the FPGA level ? A ranges property in the
> FPGA node would let me map addresses in the FPGA scope to the localbus
> scope. However, as the localbus scope use the chipselect number as its
> first address cell and 0 as its second address cell,
The second cell is the address within the chipselect. If it were always
zero, it wouldn't be there at all.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
