Following on with my RTC problem, I cut&pasted this from
the TQM5200 dts file:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
compatible = "fsl,mpc5200-i2c","fsl-i2c";
reg = <0x3d40 0x40>;
interrupts = <2 16 0>;
interrupt-parent = <&mpc5200_pic>;
fsl5200-clocking;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
device_type = "rtc";
compatible = "dallas,ds1307";
reg = <0x68>;
};
};
However, the dts file I started with had this (*mine*):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
compatible = "fsl,mpc5200-i2c","fsl-i2c";
cell-index = <1>;
reg = <3d40 40>;
interrupts = <2 10 0>;
interrupt-parent = <&mpc5200_pic>;
fsl5200-clocking;
};
Notice the different mix of hex (0xNNN) and implied hex values.
This is really confusing to me. Even more so when I added the
RTC snippet cut directly from the TQM5200 file:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
device_type = "rtc";
compatible = "dallas,ds1307";
reg = <0x68>;
};
This yielded a syntax error when merged with my platform dts.
When I changed the 'reg=<0x68>' to 'reg=<68>', the syntax error
went away & it worked perfectly.
What gives? Why is explicit hex sometimes an error and sometimes not?
Is the format of this file documented anywhere (I've not found it)?
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas | Consulting for the
MLB Associates | Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
