From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from exprod5og114.obsmtp.com (exprod5og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.0.28]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EABC4B70EE for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 15:19:58 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail-qw0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 5so3673558qwh.4 for ; Sun, 05 Sep 2010 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Tirumala Marri References: <1283464653-18492-1-git-send-email-tmarri@apm.com> <20100903020851.GC29732@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <197d4509c0b1206ce2d686c03701a6b4@mail.gmail.com> <20100905222340.GC2150@lixom.net> In-Reply-To: <20100905222340.GC2150@lixom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 22:19:53 -0700 Message-ID: <01bb9090932e6984c887273078fd586f@mail.gmail.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH] APM821xx: Add support for new SoC APM821xx To: Olof Johansson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > Then the device tree identifier, and the cpu setup functions, etc, > should indicate > 464, not APM821xx. This is new SoC based on 464 cpu core. All the previous SoC device tree CPU portion uses SoC name. > > Also, why add yet another defconfig? Isn't the eval board similar to > many others and can be supported with just a tweak of some existing > common defconfig instead? > Every new board needs new defconfig. And it is not same as others. It has Different features from other.