Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Partial reg semantics for child nodes of indirect buses #171

Open
mbolivar-nordic opened this issue Mar 2, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Partial reg semantics for child nodes of indirect buses #171

mbolivar-nordic opened this issue Mar 2, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@mbolivar-nordic
Copy link
Contributor

This is similar to #170, except it's a situation where a
node has a reg property, but critical information is missing.

As of 4fc81d4, it's not clear what
happens if I map in a node via an address-map property which has one
of #address-cells or #size-cells set to zero in the parent node.
In this case, the node's register blocks are missing information that
we need to decide if the node is visible to the CPU cluster containing
the address-map property or not.

What do we do here?

  • always visible?
  • never visible?
  • visible if the base address is visible when #size-cells is 0?

I guess a zero #address-cells but a nonzero #size-cells is not
practical, but I also don't know that it's explicitly forbidden by
DTSpec.

@sstabellini
Copy link
Collaborator

I think we should bundle this case together with #170 and say that if a child of a bus doesn't have a reg property (or #address-cells and/or #size-cells is zero) then it gets mapped if the bus is mapped.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants