From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (nz-out-0506.google.com [64.233.162.237]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19AD2DDE43 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:57:20 +1000 (EST) Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i1so1566479nzh for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:57:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:57:18 -0600 From: "Grant Likely" Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca To: "Marian Balakowicz" Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] [POWERPC] TQM5200 DTS In-Reply-To: <4715ED92.80503@semihalf.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <47075FA7.3030108@semihalf.com> <4708BFDD.9020900@semihalf.com> <4715ED92.80503@semihalf.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 10/17/07, Marian Balakowicz wrote: > Grant Likely wrote: > >> + memory { > >> + device_type = "memory"; > >> + reg = <00000000 04000000>; // 64MB > >> + }; > >> + > >> + soc5200@f0000000 { > > > > I think we're moving to the convetion of naming these nodes > > "soc@" now. (You can drop the 5200 for the node name) > > Seems that this will not be painless, U-boot uses hardcoded > paths with 'soc5200', so the appropriate patch will be needed. > That may be ok for new boards but what do we do with lite5200, > where U-boot upgrade is not always an option? Hmm; yeah I guess there are probably already deployed tqm5200 boards with hard coded soc5200. Alright; leave it as is. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. grant.likely@secretlab.ca (403) 399-0195