[PATCH v3 10/12] ARM: mvebu: Relocate Armada 370/XP DeviceBus device tree nodes

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday 19 June 2013, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 06:16:26PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > > 
> > > +               devbus-bootcs {
> > > +                       compatible = "marvell,mvebu-devbus";
> > > +                       reg = <0xffff0001 0x10400 0x8>;
> > > +                       ranges = <0 MBUS_ID(0x01, 0x2f) 0 0xffffffff>;
> > > +                       #address-cells = <1>;
> > > +                       #size-cells = <1>;
> > > +                       clocks = <&coreclk 0>;
> > > +                       status = "disabled";
> > > +               };
> > 
> > This is a violation of the binding as far as I can tell, since you don't specify ranges
> > to access the 0xffff0001 0x10400 address. However, as I explained in my comment for
> > the binding, I think you should clarify the binding and leave the implementation
> > as you have it here.
> > 
> 
> Mmm... again I got lost here. Which 'ranges' you say I don't specify to
> access the (formerly) 0xffff0001?
> 
> AFAIK, 'ranges' are only for children translation, which means I don't
> need to specify a ranges for that in the devbus node, but in its parent,
> right?
> 
> This ranges thing can be very tricky, so please correct me if I'm
> mistaken.

You already clarified that the binding was wrong. This was about the
part where you replied:

>> Do you really want to require the child to provide a "ranges" property?
>> I think this makes it more complicated to specify devices that belong
>> into the "internal-regs" category.
>> 
>
>No, this text is actually a left-over from the previous patchset, in
>current v3 patchset MBus children are not required to have any ranges.
>On the otherside, although you will need one except in the most trivial
>cases like for the BootROM.

With that change, everything above is ok.

	Arnd