From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from az33egw02.freescale.net (az33egw02.freescale.net [192.88.158.103]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "az33egw02.freescale.net", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B878BDDF94 for ; Thu, 31 May 2007 13:41:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from az33smr02.freescale.net (az33smr02.freescale.net [10.64.34.200]) by az33egw02.freescale.net (8.12.11/az33egw02) with ESMTP id l4V3fO9I008076 for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 20:41:25 -0700 (MST) Received: from zch01exm23.fsl.freescale.net (zch01exm23.ap.freescale.net [10.192.129.207]) by az33smr02.freescale.net (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l4V3fNdQ026853 for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 22:41:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2]: Fix e500 v2 core reboot bug From: Zang Roy-r61911 To: Kumar Gala In-Reply-To: <976AFF56-7590-46B9-ADCA-4FA6673D4C9B@kernel.crashing.org> References: <1180406209.8139.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1180492466.12577.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1180503967.12577.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <19325B38-202C-4837-9BE8-0ACA482F2605@kernel.crashing.org> <976AFF56-7590-46B9-ADCA-4FA6673D4C9B@kernel.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1180582852.16155.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: 31 May 2007 11:40:52 +0800 Cc: linuxppc-dev list , Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 21:49, Kumar Gala wrote: > >>>>> I'm not terrible happy with blindly writing to rstcr. > >>>>> > >>>> I can understand you. > >>>> But I jut want to make things simple and workable. > >>>> Any idea? > >>> > >>> one idea would be for us to add a property on the soc node. > >>> Something like has-rstcr or something similar in a guts node? > >> I have seen your suggestion before to add a property in device > tree. > >> But I still think the current implementation is simple. > > > > While it simple you are depending on the fact that a given > > implementation may or may not have something at the particular > > offset. Who knows if 8599 or some future part could put the 'cause > > my part to smoke and self-destruct' at the same offset in the > > future :) > > > >> Anyway, I can try your suggestion. > > > > I'm thinking have a guts block and putting a property in it makes > the > > most sense. > > After some discussion on IRC I think the following is the suggested > node we should add in. > > guts@e00000 { > compatible = "fsl,mpc8548-guts"; > reg = ; > fsl,has-rstcr; > }; Great! Roy