From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8EC8DDEF3 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:58:04 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:57:45 +0400 From: Vitaly Bordug To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH 49/61] 8xx: Update device trees. Message-ID: <20070719205745.57f9d5a0@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: References: <20070718013604.GU15238@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , just my 2 cents. [snip] > > > + fsl,cpm-brg = <1>; > > + fsl,cpm-command = <0090>; > > Are these two documented? Your patch queue is too > long for me to check for myself. > In fact, there were different approaches to describe CPM, and I am sure this is not the end. These aren't documented, and I think we do not need that so far: I am pretty sure this will change to something more comfortable as new similar ports will follow-up. Meanwhile, values are self-description for anybody familiar with this SoC. > > - soc885@ff000000 { > > + bcsr@ff080000 { > > Maybe use a more generic name, I have no idea what a > "BCSR" is. > IIRC, QE stuff, when first introduced, had bcsr bindings, that were discussed and agreed here. -- Sincerely, Vitaly