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 A1B2CDDE3F for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:07:13 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <46464F84-5040-4F37-B854-94378C9802AD@kernel.crashing.org> References: <630B6BC9-389F-4F5C-AE8F-9C3131C4543E@kernel.crashing.org> <46464F84-5040-4F37-B854-94378C9802AD@kernel.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <2A35E795-6F01-4A14-BE23-B46F110DBD60@kernel.crashing.org> From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add StorCenter DTS first draft. Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:27:52 -0500 To: Segher Boessenkool Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org list" , Jon Loeliger List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Jul 18, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>>> + compatible = "storcenter"; >>> >>> Needs a manufacturer name in there. >> >> Right. Will use: >> compatible = "iomega,storcenter" > > Okido. > >>>> + PowerPC,603e { /* Really 8241 */ >>> >>> So say "PowerPC,8241@0", or "PowerPC,e300@0" (or whatever >>> the CPU core in there is), or simply "cpu@0", following >>> the generic naming recommended practice. >> >> Well, its the 8241 SoC with a 603e core... (This is >> the same phrase currently being used on the Kurobox.) >> I'll use: >> >> PowerPC,8241@0 } > > That might be best yes. > >>>> + soc10x { >>> >>> Bad name. Where is the binding for this? I don't think >>> I saw it before. >> >> It's what is being used, again, by the Kurobox. I understand >> that doesn't make it "right", just precedented by now. > > Sure, just trying to trick you into documenting it ;-) > >> How about "soc8241@80000000" instead? > > soc@ like suggested by Scott seems just fine. > >>>> + compatible = "fsl-i2c"; >>> >>> Needs to be more specific. >> >> Hmmm... Not sure what to use here then. There are many >> existing examples using "fsl-i2c" already. Granted, we've >> established that they could be wrong... Should this be >> more like this?: >> >> compatible = "fsl,mpc8241-i2c", "fsl-i2c"; > > That looks good yes. Or if the kernel side code for > recognising fsl,mpc8241-i2c gets merged in time, you > can leave out fsl-i2c from your device tree completely. Hmm, there are really only two fsl,i2c controllers. The one we call fsl-i2c, and the cpm-i2c controller. So I'd prefer we don't use fsl,mpc8241-i2c. I'd suggest fsl,ppc-i2c or something like that. - k