* [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts
@ 2011-09-01 19:26 Kumar Gala
2011-09-01 20:42 ` Scott Wood
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2011-09-01 19:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-dev
The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other
e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be
consistent going forward.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
---
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi | 16 ++++++++--------
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi
index b71051f..4984edb 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi
+++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
- cpu0: PowerPC,4080@0 {
+ cpu0: PowerPC,e500mc@0 {
device_type = "cpu";
reg = <0>;
next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@
next-level-cache = <&cpc>;
};
};
- cpu1: PowerPC,4080@1 {
+ cpu1: PowerPC,e500mc@1 {
device_type = "cpu";
reg = <1>;
next-level-cache = <&L2_1>;
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@
next-level-cache = <&cpc>;
};
};
- cpu2: PowerPC,4080@2 {
+ cpu2: PowerPC,e500mc@2 {
device_type = "cpu";
reg = <2>;
next-level-cache = <&L2_2>;
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@
next-level-cache = <&cpc>;
};
};
- cpu3: PowerPC,4080@3 {
+ cpu3: PowerPC,e500mc@3 {
device_type = "cpu";
reg = <3>;
next-level-cache = <&L2_3>;
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@
next-level-cache = <&cpc>;
};
};
- cpu4: PowerPC,4080@4 {
+ cpu4: PowerPC,e500mc@4 {
device_type = "cpu";
reg = <4>;
next-level-cache = <&L2_4>;
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@
next-level-cache = <&cpc>;
};
};
- cpu5: PowerPC,4080@5 {
+ cpu5: PowerPC,e500mc@5 {
device_type = "cpu";
reg = <5>;
next-level-cache = <&L2_5>;
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@
next-level-cache = <&cpc>;
};
};
- cpu6: PowerPC,4080@6 {
+ cpu6: PowerPC,e500mc@6 {
device_type = "cpu";
reg = <6>;
next-level-cache = <&L2_6>;
@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@
next-level-cache = <&cpc>;
};
};
- cpu7: PowerPC,4080@7 {
+ cpu7: PowerPC,e500mc@7 {
device_type = "cpu";
reg = <7>;
next-level-cache = <&L2_7>;
--
1.7.3.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts
2011-09-01 19:26 [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts Kumar Gala
@ 2011-09-01 20:42 ` Scott Wood
2011-09-01 22:34 ` Tabi Timur-B04825
2011-09-02 3:21 ` Kumar Gala
2011-09-01 22:33 ` Tabi Timur-B04825
2011-10-12 4:21 ` Kumar Gala
2 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Scott Wood @ 2011-09-01 20:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
> The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other
> e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be
> consistent going forward.
Why are we not using the generic names recommendation?
Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use
"fsl"?
-Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts
2011-09-01 19:26 [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts Kumar Gala
2011-09-01 20:42 ` Scott Wood
@ 2011-09-01 22:33 ` Tabi Timur-B04825
2011-09-02 3:35 ` Kumar Gala
2011-10-12 4:21 ` Kumar Gala
2 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Tabi Timur-B04825 @ 2011-09-01 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> wrot=
e:
> The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other
> e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. =A0Use the core name to be
> consistent going forward.
Shouldn't we change the nodes for all e500 based device trees in one
shot, instead of just the P4080?
--=20
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale=
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts
2011-09-01 20:42 ` Scott Wood
@ 2011-09-01 22:34 ` Tabi Timur-B04825
2011-09-02 3:21 ` Kumar Gala
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Tabi Timur-B04825 @ 2011-09-01 22:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wood Scott-B07421; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote:
> On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other
>> e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. =A0Use the core name to be
>> consistent going forward.
>
> Why are we not using the generic names recommendation?
>
> Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use
> "fsl"?
And what about a compatible property?
--=20
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale=
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts
2011-09-01 20:42 ` Scott Wood
2011-09-01 22:34 ` Tabi Timur-B04825
@ 2011-09-02 3:21 ` Kumar Gala
2011-09-02 17:52 ` Scott Wood
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2011-09-02 3:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Wood; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other
>> e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be
>> consistent going forward.
>=20
> Why are we not using the generic names recommendation?
>=20
> Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we =
use
> "fsl"?
>=20
> -Scott
I have mixed feelings on this. The PowerPC,NAME has a long history & =
precedence. Is there any use or value to change this?
- k=
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts
2011-09-01 22:33 ` Tabi Timur-B04825
@ 2011-09-02 3:35 ` Kumar Gala
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2011-09-02 3:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tabi Timur-B04825; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Sep 1, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> =
wrote:
>> The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other
>> e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be
>> consistent going forward.
>=20
> Shouldn't we change the nodes for all e500 based device trees in one
> shot, instead of just the P4080?
I changed all the e500mc class to match what is used by everyone else. =
The e500v1/e500v2 are use the same convention at this time so figured a =
separate patch can handle them.
- k=
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts
2011-09-02 3:21 ` Kumar Gala
@ 2011-09-02 17:52 ` Scott Wood
2011-09-02 18:29 ` Kumar Gala
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Scott Wood @ 2011-09-02 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On 09/01/2011 10:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>
>> On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other
>>> e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be
>>> consistent going forward.
>>
>> Why are we not using the generic names recommendation?
>>
>> Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use
>> "fsl"?
>>
>> -Scott
>
> I have mixed feelings on this. The PowerPC,NAME has a long history & precedence. Is there any use or value to change this?
It's inconsistent with all of our other compatibles. My understanding
is that for older chips, the naming was from a managed numberspace -- is
"e500" or "eXXXX" something that was explicitly granted to us by
power.org, or just something we started calling our cores?
-Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts
2011-09-02 17:52 ` Scott Wood
@ 2011-09-02 18:29 ` Kumar Gala
2011-09-02 18:33 ` Scott Wood
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2011-09-02 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Wood; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Sep 2, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 09/01/2011 10:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>=20
>> On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>=20
>>> On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>> The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the =
other
>>>> e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be
>>>> consistent going forward.
>>>=20
>>> Why are we not using the generic names recommendation?
>>>=20
>>> Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we =
use
>>> "fsl"?
>>>=20
>>> -Scott
>>=20
>> I have mixed feelings on this. The PowerPC,NAME has a long history & =
precedence. Is there any use or value to change this?
>=20
> It's inconsistent with all of our other compatibles. My understanding
> is that for older chips, the naming was from a managed numberspace -- =
is
> "e500" or "eXXXX" something that was explicitly granted to us by
> power.org, or just something we started calling our cores?
>=20
> -Scott
The names for PPC cores are NOT granted by anyone. However, its pretty =
clear that FSLs current naming is:
e500v1
e500v2
e500mc
e5500
e6500
e600
e300c1
e300c2
e300c3
e300c4
e200..
- k=
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts
2011-09-02 18:29 ` Kumar Gala
@ 2011-09-02 18:33 ` Scott Wood
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Scott Wood @ 2011-09-02 18:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On 09/02/2011 01:29 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Sep 2, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>
>> On 09/01/2011 10:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>> Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use
>>>> "fsl"?
>>>
>>> I have mixed feelings on this. The PowerPC,NAME has a long history & precedence. Is there any use or value to change this?
>>
>> It's inconsistent with all of our other compatibles. My understanding
>> is that for older chips, the naming was from a managed numberspace -- is
>> "e500" or "eXXXX" something that was explicitly granted to us by
>> power.org, or just something we started calling our cores?
>
> The names for PPC cores are NOT granted by anyone.
So, it's fsl's namespace, and the vendor id should be fsl.
-Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts
2011-09-01 19:26 [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts Kumar Gala
2011-09-01 20:42 ` Scott Wood
2011-09-01 22:33 ` Tabi Timur-B04825
@ 2011-10-12 4:21 ` Kumar Gala
2 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2011-10-12 4:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Sep 1, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
> The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other
> e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be
> consistent going forward.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi | 16 ++++++++--------
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
applied
- k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-10-12 4:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-09-01 19:26 [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts Kumar Gala
2011-09-01 20:42 ` Scott Wood
2011-09-01 22:34 ` Tabi Timur-B04825
2011-09-02 3:21 ` Kumar Gala
2011-09-02 17:52 ` Scott Wood
2011-09-02 18:29 ` Kumar Gala
2011-09-02 18:33 ` Scott Wood
2011-09-01 22:33 ` Tabi Timur-B04825
2011-09-02 3:35 ` Kumar Gala
2011-10-12 4:21 ` Kumar Gala
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.