From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stanimir Vabanov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: qcom: Add initial IPQ8064 SoC and AP148 device trees Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 00:36:28 +0300 Message-ID: <53446BDC.2050609@mm-sol.com> References: <1396972276-11549-1-git-send-email-galak@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1396972276-11549-1-git-send-email-galak@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kumar Gala , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Russell King , David Brown Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Kumar, > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064-ap148.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064-ap148.dts > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..5e6f456 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064-ap148.dts > @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ > +#include "qcom-ipq8064-v1.0.dtsi" > + > +/ { > + model = "Qualcomm IPQ8064/DB149"; > + compatible = "qcom,ipq8064-db149", "qcom,ipq8064"; The patch subject saying AP148, and here AP149. Which is the wrong one? > + > + soc { > + serial@16340000 { > + status = "ok"; > + }; > + }; > +}; > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064-v1.0.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064-v1.0.dtsi > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..7093b07 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064-v1.0.dtsi > @@ -0,0 +1 @@ > +#include "qcom-ipq8064.dtsi" > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064.dtsi > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..8ca3b51 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-ipq8064.dtsi > + > + intc: interrupt-controller@2000000 { > + compatible = "qcom,msm-qgic2"; > + interrupt-controller; > + #interrupt-cells = <3>; > + reg = < 0x02000000 0x1000 >, > + < 0x02002000 0x1000 >; extra spaces around these numbers regards, Stan