From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
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 ESMTPS id D0056B6F68
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Sat,  3 Sep 2011 04:29:38 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match
	other	e500mc based .dts
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
In-Reply-To: <4E6117E6.8080103@freescale.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 13:29:29 -0500
Message-Id: <337763E2-C543-4CC2-95F2-0B7BDBA0E6B6@kernel.crashing.org>
References: <1314905175-4371-1-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org>
	<4E5FEE40.7080901@freescale.com>
	<0995BAB2-7865-4E95-A842-EFE486FFDAC4@kernel.crashing.org>
	<4E6117E6.8080103@freescale.com>
To: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>


On Sep 2, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Scott Wood wrote:

> On 09/01/2011 10:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>=20
>> On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>=20
>>> On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>> The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the =
other
>>>> e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc.  Use the core name to be
>>>> consistent going forward.
>>>=20
>>> Why are we not using the generic names recommendation?
>>>=20
>>> Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we =
use
>>> "fsl"?
>>>=20
>>> -Scott
>>=20
>> I have mixed feelings on this.  The PowerPC,NAME has a long history & =
precedence.  Is there any use or value to change this?
>=20
> It's inconsistent with all of our other compatibles.  My understanding
> is that for older chips, the naming was from a managed numberspace -- =
is
> "e500" or "eXXXX" something that was explicitly granted to us by
> power.org, or just something we started calling our cores?
>=20
> -Scott

The names for PPC cores are NOT granted by anyone.  However, its pretty =
clear that FSLs current naming is:

e500v1
e500v2
e500mc
e5500
e6500

e600
e300c1
e300c2
e300c3
e300c4

e200..

- k=