From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from TX2EHSOBE004.bigfish.com (tx2ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com", Issuer "Microsoft Secure Server Authority" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CFECB6F7F for ; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 04:33:22 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <4E61216A.4040502@freescale.com> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 13:33:14 -0500 From: Scott Wood MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts 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> <337763E2-C543-4CC2-95F2-0B7BDBA0E6B6@kernel.crashing.org> In-Reply-To: <337763E2-C543-4CC2-95F2-0B7BDBA0E6B6@kernel.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 09/02/2011 01:29 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Sep 2, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 09/01/2011 10:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>>> Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use >>>> "fsl"? >>> >>> I have mixed feelings on this. The PowerPC,NAME has a long history & precedence. Is there any use or value to change this? >> >> 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? > > The names for PPC cores are NOT granted by anyone. So, it's fsl's namespace, and the vendor id should be fsl. -Scott