On 12 November 2012 01:12, Rob Herring robherring2@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/11/2012 11:27 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 11 November 2012 19:42, Rob Herring robherring2@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/06/2012 10:22 PM, viresh kumar wrote:
cluster0: cluster@0 {
data1 = <0x50 0x60 0x70>;data2 = <0x5000 0x6000 0x7000>;data3 = <0x50000000 0x60000000 0x70000000>;So there is a mismatch in our assumptions. You are just truncating 32-bit values. I assumed you were using the 8 and 16 bit sizes that are now supported in dts. I don't think we should just truncate values blindly. We have support for specifying 8 and 16 values now so you should use that and define that as part of a binding.
Sorry couldn't get your point at all :( What did you mean by "truncating 32 bit values" and how should we tell via DT, that the value passed is 8 bit, 16 bit or 32 bit?
You are trying to retrieve an array of 8 or 16-bit values which are stored as 32-bit values in dtb. Why not define them in the binding as 8 or 16 bit to begin with. Then there is never any ambiguity about their size.
I don't think the size is stored in the dtb. It is only in the dts. You need to define the size in the binding definitions and use '/bits/' annotation. With this the data is packed. Then the array function used should match what the binding defines.
Aha, and in that case incrementing address by 4 in my patch will fail. Right? Will fix it. Thanks for increasing my knowledge on this :)
-- viresh