On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 12:42 +0800, Rongrong Zou wrote:
Right, and the "compatible" property should be something like the
specific implementation of the LPC bridge. For example, ibm,power8-
in my case. Not something generic.
Maybe we could allow for a generic one if the LPC is directly MMIO
mapped via the ranges property.
It is not directly MMIO mapped actually.
I know yours is not. But some are. My point is that we should have a
binding that is either completely specific to your ARM64 LPC or we
should have a generic LPC binding with provisions for implementation
specific stuff such as ARM64 or POWER8 which are both not MMIO mapped.
I go for the latter.
So "ranges" if you are mapped, otherwise "reg", and in the latter case,
the compatible property should be much more specific like it is for P8,
The big problem is we do not want the "ranges" property, but we can't
get resource if the property is absent, you could see discussion at
That's fixable. I missed the discussion but I'll have a look tomorrow.