From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from db9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (mail-db9lp0253.outbound.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.253]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com", Issuer "MSIT Machine Auth CA 2" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BDCF2C00A7 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 08:41:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail9-db9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail9-db9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E03EC80173 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 22:41:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DB9EHSMHS010.bigfish.com (unknown [10.174.16.231]) by mail9-db9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19D73920046 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 22:41:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:41:10 -0500 From: Scott Wood To: Po Liu Subject: Re: [1/4] powerpc/85xx: Add SEC6.0 device tree Message-ID: <20130722224110.GA26221@home.buserror.net> References: <1366854857-22791-1-git-send-email-Po.Liu@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <1366854857-22791-1-git-send-email-Po.Liu@freescale.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Mingkai Hu List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 09:54:14AM +0800, Po Liu wrote: > From: Mingkai Hu > > Add device tree for SEC 6.0 used on C29x silicon. > > Signed-off-by: Mingkai Hu > Singed-off-by: Po Liu I've heard of patches being flamed, but here we want signing, not singeing. :-) Don't forget that you can use the -s option to have git add the signoff for you. > --- > Base on git://git.am.freescale.net/gitolite/mirrors/linux-2.6.git This URL is not accessible outside Freescale, so don't reference it when posting patches publicly. If your patch is against the latest upstream code, you don't need to say anything special about that. You only need to make a note when it's against some other yet-to-be-merged tree or patch. > + compatible = "fsl,sec-v6.0", "fsl,sec-v5.2", > + "fsl,sec-v5.0", "fsl,sec-v4.4", > + "fsl,sec-v4.0"; > + fsl,sec-era = <6>; > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <1>; > + > + jr@1000 { > + compatible = "fsl,sec-v6.0-job-ring", > + "fsl,sec-v5.2-job-ring", > + "fsl,sec-v5.0-job-ring", > + "fsl,sec-v4.4-job-ring", > + "fsl,sec-v4.0-job-ring"; > + reg = <0x1000 0x1000>; > + }; > + > + jr@2000 { > + compatible = "fsl,sec-v6.0-job-ring", > + "fsl,sec-v5.2-job-ring", > + "fsl,sec-v5.0-job-ring", > + "fsl,sec-v4.4-job-ring", > + "fsl,sec-v4.0-job-ring"; > + reg = <0x2000 0x1000>; > + }; You claim compatibility with a bunch of prior SECs, but sec-v5.2 has four job rings and an rtic node. Likewise for the previous compatibles listed. This has two job rings and no rtic. Can you point to where in the SEC v4.0 binding (I don't see a binding for the subsequent versions), it says that these are optional? -Scott