From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay01.pair.com (relay01.pair.com [209.68.5.15]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C0B38DDF23 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:09:21 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:09:05 -0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/4xx: DTS: Add Add'l SDRAM0 Compatible and Interrupt Info From: Grant Erickson To: David Gibson Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20081217234610.GA11185@yookeroo.seuss> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, bluesmoke-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 12/17/08 3:46 PM, David Gibson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:56:07AM -0800, Grant Erickson wrote: >> Added additional information for type and compatibility strings and >> interrupt information to the SDRAM0 memory-controller device tree >> nodes for AMCC PowerPC 405EX[r]-based boards to facilitate binding >> with the new "ibm,sdram-4xx-ddr2" EDAC memory controller adapter driver. >> >> Signed-off-by: Grant Erickson >> --- >> As support in the associated EDAC adapter driver is added over time, >> similar changes will/should be made to the DTS files for boards >> leveraging realizations of this "ibm,sdram-4xx-ddr2" controller, >> including the 440SP, 440SPe, 460EX, 460GT and 460SX. >> >> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/haleakala.dts | 11 ++++++++++- >> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/kilauea.dts | 11 ++++++++++- >> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/makalu.dts | 11 ++++++++++- >> 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/haleakala.dts >> b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/haleakala.dts >> index 513bc43..e45ce7e 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/haleakala.dts >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/haleakala.dts >> @@ -89,8 +89,17 @@ >> clock-frequency = <0>; /* Filled in by U-Boot */ >> >> SDRAM0: memory-controller { >> - compatible = "ibm,sdram-405exr"; >> + device_type = "memory-controller"; > > This should not have a device_type. I'm still growing my device tree expertise. Can you elaborate on why SDRAM0 shouldn't be described generically as a "memory-controller" device in the same way the EMAC0 is generically described as a "network" device? A URL to said elaboration would be sufficient. >> + compatible = "ibm,sdram-405exr", "ibm,sdram-4xx-ddr2"; >> dcr-reg = <0x010 0x002>; >> + #address-cells = <0>; >> + #size-cells = <0>; > > This seems odd. These should only be present if the node does, or at > least can, have subnodes - I don't see that it would. See above qualifier; will remove. Thanks for the prompt review! Regards, Grant