Hello.

Vitaly Bordug wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+#define BCSR_PHYS_ADDR		((uint)0xf8000000)
+#define BCSR_SIZE		((uint)(32 * 1024))

quoted

quoted

quoted

This sort of thing should really be in the device tree.

quoted

quoted

Just a suggestion, but for the similar aim in pq2 I have those stuff

quoted

in memory node :

quoted

quoted

+memory {
+               device_type = "memory";
+               linux,phandle = <300>;
+               reg = <00000000 4000000 f4500000 00000020>;
+       };
the second pair is about bcsr and its size.

quoted

quoted

Just in case this may help (and wondering if I'm not violating

quoted

something :) )

quoted

Well, this can make it work.  But I would prefer to use a new node
because the BCSR is by no means a memory type of device.  I have made my
change to use node like this:

quoted

       bcsr@f8000000 {
               device_type = "board-control";
               reg = <f8000000 8000>;
       };

I though about that approach, but saw somewhere a reference that we should not summon new node types without utter necessity, and utilized memory because bcsr is memory-mapped stuff.

    You might have utilized "memory" even for the Ethernet controllers guided 
by such logic. Of course, that was a wrong criterion -- "memory" is for RAM, 
otherwise you'd be fooling the kernel device tree scanner which looks for the 
"memory" nodes.

I can hardly imagine bcsr as a device (which would require respective spec inclusion btw).

    And this is hardly a memory, neverthless.

WBR, Sergei