From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.177]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07F3ADDDFE for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 22:41:06 +1000 (EST) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m28so200293wag for ; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 05:41:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 06:41:04 -0600 From: "Grant Likely" Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca To: "Domen Puncer" Subject: Re: [PATCH] lite5200b: flash definition in dts In-Reply-To: <20070801065203.GK4529@moe.telargo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <20070619095408.GK23294@moe.telargo.com> <20070801065203.GK4529@moe.telargo.com> Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 8/1/07, Domen Puncer wrote: > Add flash definition for to lite5200b dts, and while at it > fix "ranges" for soc node. > > > Signed-off-by: Domen Puncer > > --- > Hi! > > Sylvain, it would be nice to have this merged. > > # cat /proc/mtd > dev: size erasesize name > mtd0: 01000000 00020000 "data0" > mtd1: 00f00000 00020000 "data1" > mtd2: 00100000 00020000 "u-boot" > > Some benchmarks: > read: 2.3 MB/s > erase: 168 kB/s > write: 7.3 kB/s > > > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/lite5200b.dts | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Index: work-powerpc.git/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/lite5200b.dts > =================================================================== > --- work-powerpc.git.orig/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/lite5200b.dts > +++ work-powerpc.git/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/lite5200b.dts > @@ -52,7 +52,8 @@ > revision = ""; // from bootloader > #interrupt-cells = <3>; > device_type = "soc"; > - ranges = <0 f0000000 f0010000>; > + ranges = <00000000 f0000000 00010000 > + fe000000 fe000000 02000000>; I don't think this is the right approach. I think the SoC node is intended for describing the on-chip devices, and the ranges property reflects that. Shouldn't flash nodes be up 1 level? Cheers, g. > reg = ; > bus-frequency = <0>; // from bootloader > system-frequency = <0>; // from bootloader > @@ -403,5 +404,26 @@ > compatible = "mpc5200b-sram\0mpc5200-sram\0sram"; > reg = <8000 4000>; > }; > + > + flash@fe000000 { > + device_type = "rom"; > + compatible = "direct-mapped"; > + probe-type = "CFI"; > + reg = ; > + bank-width = <1>; > + partitions = <00000000 01000000>; > + partition-names = "data0"; > + }; > + > + flash@ff000000 { > + device_type = "rom"; > + compatible = "direct-mapped"; > + probe-type = "CFI"; > + reg = ; > + bank-width = <1>; > + partitions = <00000000 00f00000 > + 00f00000 00100000>; > + partition-names = "data1", "u-boot"; > + }; > }; > }; > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-embedded mailing list > Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org > https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded > -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. grant.likely@secretlab.ca (403) 399-0195