On 03/20/2014 12:08 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:50:07PM +0100, Valentin Longchamp wrote: >> + reset_cpld@1,0 { >> + interrupt-controller; >> + #interrupt-cells = <2>; >> + reg = <1 0 0x80>; >> + interrupt-parent = <&mpic>; >> + interrupts = < >> + 4 1 0 0 >> + 5 1 0 0>; >> + }; >> + >> + chassis_mgmt@3,0 { >> + interrupt-controller; >> + #interrupt-cells = <2>; >> + reg = <3 0 0x100>; >> + interrupt-parent = <&mpic>; >> + interrupts = <6 1 0 0>; >> + }; > > Dashes are preferred to underscores in device trees.
OK. > > More importantly, these nodes need proper compatibles and bindings. Once > that's done, the name for the nodes should probably be > "board_control@whatever" for both. > The first one can be board-ctrl. The second however manages things that are beyond this board and important for other boards in the chassis, so I think chassis-mgmt is correct. For the binding/compatbiles issues: in the first discussion I had omitted these nodes because these are not available (and honestly for such FPGAs I doubt they will ever be mainlined). We discussed it and concluded that the DTS should describe the HW and not the drivers available in the kernel so I have now added them. Do you want me to add the compatible strings we use in our tree even though there are no bindings ? Leave them as is ? Or drop them ? Valentin _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev