From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ausmtp05.au.ibm.com (ausmtp05.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.154]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "ausmtp05.au.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0647DDE02 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:44:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from sd0208e0.au.ibm.com (d23rh904.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.202]) by ausmtp05.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0ABjcnL5058752 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:45:39 -0100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.250.243]) by sd0208e0.au.ibm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/NCO v8.1.1) with ESMTP id l09NlHwD191448 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:47:22 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l09NhmNq022024 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:43:49 +1100 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:41:07 +1100 From: David Gibson To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: EMAC OF binding.... Message-ID: <20070109224107.GA14563@localhost.localdomain> References: <1168288352.22458.198.camel@localhost.localdomain> <5f992368c65d3d53003b0e9f2955ae79@kernel.crashing.org> <1168296460.22458.232.camel@localhost.localdomain> <27d6554d600437ed39853784c0cf96fd@kernel.crashing.org> <1168302607.22458.242.camel@localhost.localdomain> <9a44c3bbc4ab67921f784f16991889bd@kernel.crashing.org> <1168379157.22458.307.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1168380289.22458.313.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: Christian Rund , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Murali N Iyer , Hartmut Penner , linuxppc-dev list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 11:17:07PM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > I don't see the need of having some weird "soc" node that doesn't quite > > mean anything (especially on axon) that has phandles to every sub > > device > > in there :-) > > Well simply, if I understood you correctly, you have some > register where some bits control emac #0 and some control > emac #1. This register can't belong to either of those > devices because it can't belong to both, so it has to > belong to some "control" / "power management" / whatever > device. I believe there are also some cases where you need to put the index value itself into a field of some global control register. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson