linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
To: "Grant Likely" <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
	"Németh Márton" <nm127@freemail.hu>,
	linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: Freescale MPC5554 device tree (was: cross-compiling Linux for PowerPC e200 core?)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:04:27 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fa686aa41003121504u7d346cf7yf1e1433019b5fd22@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100312223647.GM11655@yookeroo>

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:36 PM, David Gibson
<david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 05:14:56AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
>> 2010/3/11 N=E9meth M=E1rton <nm127@freemail.hu>:
> [snip]
>> > +
>> > + =A0 =A0 =A0 cpus {
>> > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 #address-cells =3D <1>;
>> > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 #size-cells =3D <0>;
>> > +
>> > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 cpu@0 {
>> > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 device_type =3D "cpu";
>> > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 compatible =3D "PowerPC,=
5554";
>>
>> I'd rather see the same convention used here as for all the other
>> compatible values in this file. =A0ie:
>>
>> compatible =3D "fsl,mpc5554-e200z6", "fsl,powerpc-e200z6";
>>
>> Dave, what do you think?
>
> Well, you could add those too, but "PowerPC,5554" should probably
> remain.
>
> The historical background here is that in the original OF spec, driver
> matching was done on node name, and only then on compatible.
> Essentially the node name was treated as an implicit first entry in
> the compatible list. =A0The the generic names convention came along, and
> instead name became a human readable generic type for the device
> ("ethernet", "i2c", etc..).
>
> That convention has been widely used since long before flat trees
> existed, but for some reason it was never really used for cpu nodes;
> they remained as "PowerPC,XXXX" or whatever. =A0Because the varying
> names of cpu nodes was sometimes awkward to deal with in bootloaders,
> we decided it would be sensible to apply the generic names convention
> here too, so "cpu@X". =A0But then, the previous node name, which was
> treated as being prepended to compatible, should now explicitly be put
> into compatible.

In this particular case, we're talking about a part that has never
previously been described in a device tree.  So, since this is
something entirely new, what is the value in preserving the
PowerPC,XXXX style when there isn't any code that will be relying on
it?

g.

--=20
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.

  reply	other threads:[~2010-03-12 23:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-07  6:50 cross-compiling Linux for PowerPC e200 core? Németh Márton
2010-03-08 17:34 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-08 18:44   ` Németh Márton
2010-03-08 19:08     ` Grant Likely
2010-03-09  7:02       ` Németh Márton
2010-03-09  7:35         ` Grant Likely
2010-03-11  6:11           ` Freescale MPC5554 device tree (was: cross-compiling Linux for PowerPC e200 core?) Németh Márton
2010-03-11  6:23             ` David Gibson
2010-03-12  6:26               ` Németh Márton
2010-03-12 12:14                 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-12 22:36                   ` David Gibson
2010-03-12 23:04                     ` Grant Likely [this message]
2010-03-13  3:22                       ` Segher Boessenkool
2010-03-13  3:21                     ` Segher Boessenkool
2010-03-13 11:59                   ` Németh Márton
2010-03-17 18:12                     ` Németh Márton
2010-03-17 19:02                     ` Grant Likely
2010-03-22  6:28                       ` Németh Márton
2010-03-22 14:59                         ` Grant Likely
2010-03-23  5:45                           ` Németh Márton
2010-03-30  6:54                       ` Németh Márton
2010-03-08 17:47 ` cross-compiling Linux for PowerPC e200 core? Segher Boessenkool
2010-03-08 18:49   ` Németh Márton
2010-03-08 20:41     ` Segher Boessenkool
     [not found]     ` <53452.84.105.60.153.1268080871.squirrel__48847.2990495667$1268080944$gmane$org@gate.crashing.org>
2010-03-09 14:24       ` Detlev Zundel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=fa686aa41003121504u7d346cf7yf1e1433019b5fd22@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=nm127@freemail.hu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).