Hello.

Segher Boessenkool wrote:

quoted

    This doesn't mean that shift is better anyway. If everyone 
considers it
better, I give up. But be warned that shift (stride) is not the only 
property
characterizing register accesses -- the regs might be only accessible as
16/32-bit quantities, for example (16-bit is a real world example -- from
Amiga or smth of that sort, IIRC).

More importantly, "reg-shift" doesn't say what part of
the bigger words to access.  A common example is byte-wide
registers on a 32-bit-only bus; it's about 50%-50% between
connecting the registers to the low byte vs. connecting it
to the byte with the lowest address.

    We already have "big-endian" prop used in MPIC nodes, IIRC. Could try to 
"reuse" it here as well...

The only realistic way to handle all this is to put some
knowledge into the device driver.  This does of course
also mean that no "reg-shift" property is needed; the
device driver can look at your "compatible" property,
instead.

quoted

quoted

quoted

   Why the heck should we care about the UART code taling about IDE?!

quoted

quoted

Consistency?

quoted

    We're not obliged to be consistent with every piece of the kernel 
code.

It would be nice to not name similar properties in the
device tree dissimilarly.  Kernel code doesn't come into
the picture here.

    The "reg-shift" prop is yet unaccepted ad-hockery at this point. ;-)
    So, I don't see why we have to be consistent with it.

Segher

WBR, Sergei