From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 15 23:27:17 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45C2D106566C; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 23:27:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ray@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.dlink.ua (smtp.dlink.ua [193.138.187.146]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB43C8FC12; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 23:27:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rnote.ddteam.net (94-98-133-95.pool.ukrtel.net [95.133.98.94]) (Authenticated sender: ray) by smtp.dlink.ua (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F387EC493A; Sun, 16 Sep 2012 02:27:09 +0300 (EEST) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 02:27:02 +0300 From: Aleksandr Rybalko To: Grzegorz Bernacki Message-Id: <20120916022702.055cb08b.ray@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <50535E29.2030102@freebsd.org> References: <201209140933.q8E9XZnd088621@svn.freebsd.org> <20120914171652.780e25c6.ray@freebsd.org> <50535E29.2030102@freebsd.org> Organization: FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.2 (GTK+ 2.24.5; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.0) X-Operating-System: FreeBSD Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r240484 - head/sys/dev/fdt X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 23:27:17 -0000 On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:41:13 +0200 Grzegorz Bernacki wrote: > On 09/14/12 16:16, Aleksandr Rybalko wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:33:35 +0000 (UTC) > > Grzegorz Bernacki wrote: > > > >> Author: gber > >> Date: Fri Sep 14 09:33:35 2012 > >> New Revision: 240484 > >> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/240484 > >> > >> Log: > >> Set busaddr and bussize to 0 when fdt_get_range() fails. > > > > Why bussize is 0? > > I though that setting it to 0 makes sense, since we do not use > this variable in this function and setting it to some value could be > confused. I could skip setting it, but I also thought it could cause > confusion :). If you think that setting it to other value or remove > it will be better please let me know and I will change it. > > thanks > grzesiek Yeah, indeed, false alarm. Sorry for noise. But it will be very nice to hear developers opinion about ePAPR1.1 row (about "range" property): "If the property is not present in a bus node, it is assumed that no mapping exists between children of the node and the parent address space." Assuming since in most cases root node have no "ranges" property, but his child "SOC" have that property with defaults (0x0 x 0xffffffff). So nodes which have property "ranges" or not, must be processed same way. Right? WBW -- Aleksandr Rybalko