From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from imap.sh.mvista.com (unknown [63.81.120.155]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B4267C0F for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:57:55 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <451A916B.9010905@ru.mvista.com> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:57:47 +0400 From: Sergei Shtylyov MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vitaly Bordug Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] Add MPC8360EMDS board support References: <20060927155626.4d5ca19c@vitb.ru.mvista.com> <4879B0C6C249214CBE7AB04453F84E4D19D865@zch01exm20.fsl.freescale.net> <20060927165556.04c8d5d7@vitb.ru.mvista.com> In-Reply-To: <20060927165556.04c8d5d7@vitb.ru.mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello. Vitaly Bordug wrote: >>>>>+#define BCSR_PHYS_ADDR ((uint)0xf8000000) >>>>>+#define BCSR_SIZE ((uint)(32 * 1024)) >>>>This sort of thing should really be in the device tree. >>>Just a suggestion, but for the similar aim in pq2 I have those stuff >>in memory node : >>>+memory { >>>+ device_type = "memory"; >>>+ linux,phandle = <300>; >>>+ reg = <00000000 4000000 f4500000 00000020>; >>>+ }; >>>the second pair is about bcsr and its size. >>>Just in case this may help (and wondering if I'm not violating >>something :) ) >>Well, this can make it work. But I would prefer to use a new node >>because the BCSR is by no means a memory type of device. I have made my >>change to use node like this: >> bcsr@f8000000 { >> device_type = "board-control"; >> reg = ; >> }; > I though about that approach, but saw somewhere a reference that we should not summon new node types without utter necessity, and utilized memory because bcsr is memory-mapped stuff. You might have utilized "memory" even for the Ethernet controllers guided by such logic. Of course, that was a wrong criterion -- "memory" is for RAM, otherwise you'd be fooling the kernel device tree scanner which looks for the "memory" nodes. > I can hardly imagine bcsr as a device (which would require respective spec inclusion btw). And this is hardly a memory, neverthless. WBR, Sergei