On Sunday 18 of August 2013 08:09:36 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > I wonder how would this handle uniprocessor ARM (pre-v7) cores, for > > which > > the updated bindings[1] define #address-cells = <0> and so no reg > > property. > > > > [1] - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/260795 > > Why did you do that in the binding ? That sounds like looking to create > problems ...
[Copying Lorenzo...] I'm not the author of the change. I was just passing by, while the question showed up in my mind. ;) > Traditionally, UP setups just used "0" as the "reg" property on other > architectures, why do differently ? Right, especially since the ARM DT topology parsing code still considers a device tree without reg property in cpu node invalid. Best regards, Tomasz _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
