You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is nesting indirect buses allowed? It seems to introduce a lot of
complication if so, and my guess is that it should just be explicitly
forbidden in the specification, but I'd like to know.
If this is allowed, what are the semantics for mapping in peripheral@deadbeef above in the address-map property of a
"cpus,cluster" node?
If I map in parent, do I automatically get peripheral@deadbeef
too even if I don't map child?
If so, via what address map translation through child?
If not, does that mean I can simply ignore any "indirect-bus"
node, along with all of its children, that aren't mapped
explicitly (assuming peripheral@deadbeef is not present in the address-map property)?
If I map in child but not parent, how can I generate an
equivalent devicetree? Do I need to lift child to be under the
root node or something like that?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I don't think we can or should disallow this. "indirect-bus" is not particularly special, so the same way one can nest simple-buses one should also be able to nest indirect-buses. The mapping would work based on the address-map property as usual.
Yes if you map the parent, including the entire range of the parent that is a superset, then yes the child is also mapped. The address of peripheral@deadbeef would be translated 3 times:
ranges of child
ranges of parent
address-bus
Yes you can map the child and not the parent too. You can generate an equivalent device tree by creating a parent node empty if not for the child node. Yes the device tree hierarchy should be retained. This would be the same without nesting:
amba {
peripheral@deadbeef {
};
};
in this case if address map is only mapping peripheral@deadbeef and not the whole of amba, should peripheral@deadbeef be moved directly under the root node? The answer is no. The hierarchy should be retained.
Is nesting indirect buses allowed? It seems to introduce a lot of
complication if so, and my guess is that it should just be explicitly
forbidden in the specification, but I'd like to know.
For example:
If this is allowed, what are the semantics for mapping in
peripheral@deadbeef
above in theaddress-map
property of a"cpus,cluster" node?
If I map in
parent
, do I automatically getperipheral@deadbeef
too even if I don't map
child
?child
?node, along with all of its children, that aren't mapped
explicitly (assuming
peripheral@deadbeef
is not present in theaddress-map
property)?If I map in
child
but notparent
, how can I generate anequivalent devicetree? Do I need to lift
child
to be under theroot node or something like that?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: