>>> + compatible = "storcenter";
>>
>> Needs a manufacturer name in there.
>
> Right. Will use:
> compatible = "iomega,storcenter"
Okido.
>>> + PowerPC,603e { /* Really 8241 */
>>
>> So say "PowerPC,[EMAIL PROTECTED]", or "PowerPC,[EMAIL PROTECTED]" (or
>> whatever
>> the CPU core in there is), or simply "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", following
>> the generic naming recommended practice.
>
> Well, its the 8241 SoC with a 603e core... (This is
> the same phrase currently being used on the Kurobox.)
> I'll use:
>
> PowerPC,[EMAIL PROTECTED] }
That might be best yes.
>>> + soc10x {
>>
>> Bad name. Where is the binding for this? I don't think
>> I saw it before.
>
> It's what is being used, again, by the Kurobox. I understand
> that doesn't make it "right", just precedented by now.
Sure, just trying to trick you into documenting it ;-)
> How about "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" instead?
soc@ like suggested by Scott seems just fine.
>>> + compatible = "fsl-i2c";
>>
>> Needs to be more specific.
>
> Hmmm... Not sure what to use here then. There are many
> existing examples using "fsl-i2c" already. Granted, we've
> established that they could be wrong... Should this be
> more like this?:
>
> compatible = "fsl,mpc8241-i2c", "fsl-i2c";
That looks good yes. Or if the kernel side code for
recognising fsl,mpc8241-i2c gets merged in time, you
can leave out fsl-i2c from your device tree completely.
Segher
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
