From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:53:48 +1100 From: David Gibson To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mpc82xx: Embedded Planet EP8248E support Message-ID: <20071218005348.GC9489@localhost.localdomain> References: <20071212225429.GB19027@loki.buserror.net> <20071217035912.GB3262@localhost.localdomain> <47669335.4050405@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <47669335.4050405@freescale.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:18:13AM -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > David Gibson wrote: > > As I think I said about another tree, this mdio-under-bcsr arrangement > > is pretty strange. What's going on here. > > As I answered then, it's just the way the hardware is. I didn't design > it. :-P I obviously missed when you answered this before, I was hoping for some more detail. I mean, obviously the MDIO bus is accessed via some of the board-control registers. What I'm questioning is whether it makes sense to have a distinct node to represent the mdio bus, or whether the phys should just hang straight of the bcsr node. > >> + soc@f0000000 { > >> + #address-cells = <1>; > >> + #size-cells = <1>; > >> + device_type = "soc"; > > > > Ditch the device_type. > > No, it's used by the bootwrapper. I'll get rid of it if you want to > write a find_node_by_compatible() function. :-) Well, now that libfdt is merged, there is one :-p. -- 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