From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com (e32.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.150]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e33.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484ACDDE2F for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:16:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e32.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l1KFG5AF022277 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:16:05 -0500 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.2) with ESMTP id l1KFGkVn058948 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:16:46 -0700 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l1KFGiwg009570 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:16:45 -0700 Subject: Re: [0/14] Ebony support, 2nd spi From: Josh Boyer To: Arnd Bergmann In-Reply-To: <200702201607.33249.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20070220020837.GF17818@localhost.localdomain> <1171982767.24204.70.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1171983806.24204.79.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <200702201607.33249.arnd@arndb.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:17:46 -0600 Message-Id: <1171984666.24204.90.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Christian Rund , Hartmut Penner , David Gibson List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 16:07 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 20 February 2007 16:03, Josh Boyer wrote: > > And the ebony dts also has the a bus type of "ibm,opb" as well. > > We should really get a common name for these. I don't remember > what the discussions were, but it seems we came up with different > results for Axon and ppc4xx, which is very bad. Yes, using common types would be a very good idea. There's no published DTS for Axon so we have no idea what has been previously defined. > Using type "ibm,opb" rather than just "opb" makes sense to me, > but I don't know if we already have shipping systems that use > "opb" here. I would prefer "ibm,xxx" as well if it's possible. > There is probably a similar problem with the nodes for "plb4", > "plb5" and "ebc", as well as the "compatible" property of the > serial port, which, as you noted earlier is "ns16550" on > ebony and "ns16750" on axon, although it is exactly the same > macro. Right, ebony is currently using "ibm,plb". We haven't defined an EBC node yet for 4xx. josh