From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <segher@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 ESMTP id D0F5BDE025
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:20:13 +1000 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <E1IAvVm-0005yQ-LO@jdl.com>
References: <E1IAnwC-0003Xm-6U@jdl.com>
	<630B6BC9-389F-4F5C-AE8F-9C3131C4543E@kernel.crashing.org>
	<E1IAvVm-0005yQ-LO@jdl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <46464F84-5040-4F37-B854-94378C9802AD@kernel.crashing.org>
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add StorCenter DTS first draft. 
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:19:40 +0200
To: Jon Loeliger <jdl@jdl.com>
Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org list" <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

>>> +	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.


Segher