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

Missing reg semantics for child nodes of indirect buses #170

Open
mbolivar-nordic opened this issue Mar 2, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

Missing reg semantics for child nodes of indirect buses #170

mbolivar-nordic opened this issue Mar 2, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@mbolivar-nordic
Copy link
Contributor

As of 4fc81d4, the spec seems to
leave the semantics here undefined:

/ {
	bus {
		compatible = "indirect-bus";
		clock {
			#clock-cells = <0>;
			compatible = "fixed-clock";
			clock-frequency = <32768>;
		};
	};
};

If we map in bus, do we always map in clock?

The current semantics for how nodes under an indirect-bus are included
or excluded rely on each node's reg property, which doesn't cover
this case.

@sstabellini
Copy link
Collaborator

You have a good point, we should clarify this. I think if bus is mapped, then also clock is mapped.

@mbolivar-nordic
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sstabellini I thought about this more and I have another clarifying question: is this recursive?

For example, if clock has a child node without a reg property, is that also mapped?

@sstabellini
Copy link
Collaborator

Yes, also the child of clock should be 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