From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mans@mansr.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 17:55:13 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] arm-soc: Add Sigma Designs Tango4 port In-Reply-To: <560EB1EC.3020403@free.fr> (Mason's message of "Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:33:48 +0200") References: <560EAA7C.3070302@free.fr> <560EB1EC.3020403@free.fr> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Mason writes: >>> + uart0 { >>> + compatible = "ralink,rt2880-uart"; >>> + reg = <0x10700 0x100>; >>> + clock-frequency = <7372800>; >>> + reg-shift = <2>; >>> +/* fifo-size = <16>; BROKEN */ >> >> Either fix whatever is broken or drop that line. > > I can't leave TODO reminders in the platform Kconfig? > Even as comments? Never mind, I've sent a patch fixing the problem. >>> + intc: intc at e000 { >>> + compatible = "sigma,tango-intc"; >> >> Why do you insist on using other names than the ones I've been using for >> months? Just want to leave your own mark on the code? > > You're using "sigma,smp8640-intc". > The SMP8640 is a Tango3 (MIPS-based) platform. > It makes no sense to have references to Tango3 in tango4.dtsi > Aside from the CPU difference, Tango3 and Tango4 have a lot in common though. It's commonplace to refer to peripherals by the earliest (supported) chip using them. This avoids naming conflicts if a future chip uses a different component. Some bits are incompatible even between different devices in the tango3 family. -- M?ns Rullg?rd mans at mansr.com