From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com (nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com [67.18.224.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F3967BBD for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:33:11 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <4879B0C6C249214CBE7AB04453F84E4D19D866@zch01exm20.fsl.freescale.net> References: <4879B0C6C249214CBE7AB04453F84E4D19D866@zch01exm20.fsl.freescale.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] Add MPC8360EMDS board support Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:33:33 -0500 To: Li Yang-r58472 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >>>> +memory { >>>> + device_type = "memory"; >>>> + linux,phandle = <300>; >>>> + reg = <00000000 4000000 f4500000 00000020>; >>>> + }; >>>> the second pair is about bcsr and its size. >>>> >>>> Just in case this may help (and wondering if I'm not violating >>> something :) ) >>> >>> Well, this can make it work. But I would prefer to use a new node >>> because the BCSR is by no means a memory type of device. I have > made my >>> change to use node like this: >>> >>> bcsr@f8000000 { >>> device_type = "board-control"; >>> reg = ; >>> }; >>> >> >> I though about that approach, but saw somewhere a reference that we > should not summon >> new node types without utter necessity, and utilized memory because > bcsr is >> memory-mapped stuff. I can hardly imagine bcsr as a device (which > would require >> respective spec inclusion btw). > > Well I didn't see such a guideline. However BCSR is truly a device > like > any other peripherals on board. Usually it is an FPGA on local bus to > control the board. Agree that a new node is better, calling it memory isn't right. However, I'm not sure this really needs a node in the device tree. The BCSR isn't really the same from board to board last time I checked. I'd be interested in Paul's thinking about why it should be in the tree. >> hence let's open a discussion what others think about that. The > problem seems common >> (and for some boards >> is called somewhat else apparently), but at this point we should come > to some >> conclusion, document it, and use it. > > Agreed. As we are adding more devices to the device tree, we should > also have a guideline clearly stated for adding new nodes. > > I'm adding MURAM as a new node under QE bus. Please comment. > muram@10000 { > device_type = "memory"; > ranges = <0 00010000 0000c000>; > > data-only@0{ > reg = <0 c000>; > }; > }; What was the need for this? - kumar