On Friday 01 August 2014 10:39 AM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:

On 07/31/2014 05:26 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:

quoted

On 07/31/2014 02:18 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:

quoted

Add DT node for edma0.

quoted

Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <redacted>
---
  arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 6 ++++++
  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

quoted

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
index b695548dbb4e..41ce4e8bf227 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi

@@ -150,6 +150,12 @@
              };

          };
+        edma0: edma@01c00000 {
+            compatible = "ti,edma3";
+            reg =    <0x0 0x10000>;

   Why the mismatch between the unit-address part of the node name and the
"reg" property?

For some reason the whole da850 uses offset from 0x01c00000 for the SoC IPs.
The nodes are under 'soc' and that has the ranges attribute.
I do not really like this either.

There is no reason I can remember for why we chose to go the offset +
ranges way. Probably based it on an early OMAP example. Right now lets
keep it that way unless there is a big disadvantage.

Thanks,
Sekhar