[PATCH v2 8/9] ARM: dts: refresh dts file for arch mmp

On Wednesday 06 June 2012, Mitch Bradley wrote:

On 6/5/2012 3:28 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Tuesday 05 June 2012, Chris Ball wrote:

quoted

Here's my proposal for what to do next:
  * First, you choose one of the two forms that Mitch links to.
    (Either "mmp2.dtsi" or "mmp2-flat.dtsi"; we have a weak preference
    for mmp2-flat.dtsi.)

My preference would be towards mmp2.dtsi. I've recommended doing it
that way to other people, too.

In most cases, I have found that exposing the full hierarchy is 
preferable.  For this specific SoC, which I have been working with for 
quite awhile now, I haven't found any instance where exposing the 
AXI/APB levels buys you anything.  The hierarchy just adds clutter.

That said, I don't feel strongly about it.

Neither do I. Haojian might have a better idea of what the other
SoCs in this family are like, so I think it's best if he makes the
decision which one to use.

quoted

quoted

d) Moved the "intcmux" nodes down a level so they are children of the
top-level interrupt-controller node.  The problem with having them as
peers of the top-level interrupt-controller is that their "reg"
properties conflict.  For example:
intcmux4 at d4282150 { ... reg =<0x150 0x4>,<0x168 0x4>  ... }

This is incorrect in several ways:

    1) "@d4282150" is inconsistent with "reg =<0x150" .  The "unit
       address" after @ is supposed to be the same as the first component
       of the reg property.  d4282150 is not identical to 150.

I thought the rule was that the @... part should be a translated address
in the presence of "ranges" translation so we get a unique value in case
we have multiple devices of the same name on the same address but on
different buses.

If we change this here, I suppose it also needs to be changed in a number
of other places, and we have to rethink the method for unique device
names.

My thinking was that "ranges" is inappropriate in this case (within the 
top-level interrupt controller node), and I got rid of it.  That being 
the case, this is not "in the presence of ranges".

Ok, makes sense.

	Arnd