On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Sergei Shtylyov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Grant Likely wrote: > >> Probably I misunderstood you: does it give the same result as offset > 11? > > > er; typo; oops. A 32 bit read add offset 0 is the same as a byte read > > at offset *3*. > > Oh, well... unfortunately, we can't use UPIO_MEM32 "register model" in > 8250.c anyway since that makes use of readl()/writel() -- which treat the bus > as bigendian on PPC... anyway, we would need at least a "reg-size" property, > if not new "compatible"...
:-) ... and the *driver* itself isn't any sort of issue; it's just figuring out the best way to describe the hardware accurately/appropriately so the binding can decide how to configure the driver. > >> Have you considered using the existing "big-endian" property? > > > No I haven't, but that would work too. I'm happy with that if it > > works for you. If the property was defined, then the byte offset to > > the first reg would be adjusted by 1^(reg-shift) - 1 > > You don't mean "xor" by ^, do you? :-O > In fact, it should be <<... heh; pseudocoding in the wrong language. You, of course, are right. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
