[PATCH] of: support an enumerated-bus compatible value

[Stephen Warren]

On 07/24/2012 12:48 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 July 2012, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>
>> That makes the child nodes' reg property slightly more complex since I
>> don't get to elide the size cell, but does mean that we don't have to
>> change anything (code or bindings) at all to make it work. I guess the
>> lack of any ranges property within the top-level regulators node makes
>> it clear enough that the bus/child address space is not part of the
>> parent CPU's address space.
> 
> One would think that, but the of_address handling code actually treats
> empty ranges the same as missing ranges, in violation of the spec,
> and as a workaround to deal with some powermac machines that required
> this.
> 
> I'd rather fix the code to deal with this correctly.

OK, so what is correctly then?

Adding an explicit enumerated-bus compatible value/node-type/binding
seems like "correctly" to me, but it seemed like others didn't agree.