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 ESMTPS id 3DC3EB6EF1 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:44:07 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] powerpc/dts: Add dts for p1025rdb board Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Kumar Gala In-Reply-To: <4F283CB7.4050908@freescale.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:44:11 -0600 Message-Id: <7D155016-AC91-440A-A88F-FEEF85C13184@kernel.crashing.org> References: <1328003481-31821-1-git-send-email-B32736@freescale.com> <4F283CB7.4050908@freescale.com> To: Scott Wood Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Zhicheng Fan , Zhicheng Fan List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On 01/31/2012 09:55 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: >>=20 >> On Jan 31, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Zhicheng Fan wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Zhicheng Fan >>> --- >>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p1025si-post.dtsi | 228 = +++++++++++++++++++++ >>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p1025si-pre.dtsi | 70 +++++++ >>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1025rdb.dts | 137 +++++++++++++ >>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1025rdb.dtsi | 286 = +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1025rdb_36b.dts | 88 ++++++++ >>> 5 files changed, 809 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p1025si-post.dtsi >>> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p1025si-pre.dtsi >>> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1025rdb.dts >>> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1025rdb.dtsi >>> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1025rdb_36b.dts >>=20 >> For the p1024 & p1025 I do NOT want to add new dts/fsl/p1025si*.dtsi = files. We should use the p1020 and p1021 as they are identical. >=20 > Are they sufficiently software compatible that we want to use > p1020/p1021 in all the compatible strings? If yes, how was this = verified? They are the identical silicon just in different physical packages. It = was verified by me asking the FSL marketing team. I'll work up a patch to add some comments to the p1020 & p1021si dts = files about being the same for p1024/p1025. - k=