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 54B4ADDDF4 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 03:12:00 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20070719205745.57f9d5a0@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070718013604.GU15238@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <20070719205745.57f9d5a0@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH 49/61] 8xx: Update device trees. Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:11:40 +0200 To: Vitaly Bordug Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >>> + fsl,cpm-brg = <1>; >>> + fsl,cpm-command = <0090>; >> >> Are these two documented? Your patch queue is too >> long for me to check for myself. >> > In fact, there were different approaches to describe CPM, and I am > sure this is not the end. > These aren't documented, and I think we do not need that so far: I > am pretty sure this will change > to something more comfortable as new similar ports will follow-up. > Meanwhile, values are self-description > for anybody familiar with this SoC. Even when it is a work in progress still, it would be a good idea to start documenting the device binding. >>> - soc885@ff000000 { >>> + bcsr@ff080000 { >> >> Maybe use a more generic name, I have no idea what a >> "BCSR" is. >> > IIRC, QE stuff, when first introduced, had bcsr bindings, that were > discussed and agreed here. Sure, that's not the point. Since you are using generic names, the only use for the "name" of a node is for a human reader to understand your tree. Maybe everyone using this specific SoC knows what a BCSR is; or maybe there is a more friendly name you could use. Segher