From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:34:08 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: Small fixes for the Ebony device tree Message-ID: <20070515063408.GE6998@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070515020026.GG565@localhost.localdomain> <8492e53122b6e1ba269afd53b48a4968@kernel.crashing.org> <20070515054758.GC6998@localhost.localdomain> <200705150811.09927.sr@denx.de> <20070515061855.GD6998@localhost.localdomain> <1950a79f97480ba96f1b00352ec449a5@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1950a79f97480ba96f1b00352ec449a5@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Stefan Roese , Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 08:28:09AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Anyone have any objection to the following: each of these controllers > > should have compatible properties listing 3 string, first, a specific > > version for the CPU in question (e.g "ibm,sdram-440gp"), then a string > > based on the type as listed below, finally "ibm,sdram-4xx". > > Is that last entry ever useful? Do all those controllers > have something in common? A quick glance over the descriptions in the 440GP and 405GP user manuals suggests that they have most of the registers in common, though I haven't checked to see if the semantics of those registers are actually all the same. -- 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