You don't need to mention _all_ compatible devices in
the "compatible" property, only the few that matter;
typically the oldest one, and sometimes some intermediate
device that has extra features over the original one.
The oldest one is difficult to find out sometime. Can we only set the
self
You don't need to mention _all_ compatible devices in
the compatible property, only the few that matter;
typically the oldest one, and sometimes some intermediate
device that has extra features over the original one.
The oldest one is difficult to find out sometime. Can we only set the
self
Hi, Kumar and Segher,
>
> > "..8641.." "..8641d.." "..8548.." "..8548e.." "..8543.."
> "..8543e.."
> > "..8572.." "..8572e.." "..8567.." "..8567e.." "..8568.." "..8568e.."
>
> You don't need to mention _all_ compatible devices in
> the "compatible" property, only the few that matter;
>
Hi, Kumar and Segher,
..8641.. ..8641d.. ..8548.. ..8548e.. ..8543..
..8543e..
..8572.. ..8572e.. ..8567.. ..8567e.. ..8568.. ..8568e..
You don't need to mention _all_ compatible devices in
the compatible property, only the few that matter;
typically the oldest one, and sometimes
Not at all. On an 8641 it could be
compatible = "fsl,mpc8641-rapidio" "fsl,mpc8548-rapidio";
which states "this is the 8641 thing and it is compatible
to the 8548 thing". Perfectly clear.
The concern is this isn't just compatible = "..8641.." "..8548.." but
something like:
Not at all. On an 8641 it could be
compatible = fsl,mpc8641-rapidio fsl,mpc8548-rapidio;
which states this is the 8641 thing and it is compatible
to the 8548 thing. Perfectly clear.
The concern is this isn't just compatible = ..8641.. ..8548.. but
something like:
..8641..
Some silicons of Freescale processor are the same RapidIO controller,
such as mpc8540/mpc8560 are the same (v0.0), mpc8548/mpc8641 are the
same (v1.0). For v1.0 RapidIO controller, should we use mpc8548 or
mpc8641? Those will make people confused.
Not at all. On an 8641 it could be
+- device_type : Should be "rapidio"
There is no OF binding, so no.
So, we need to define it.
If you want to. Until that has been done, don't use
a "device_type". Linux won't use it, anyway.
Do you have another ideas about that? Only remove it?
Yeah, remove it.
Using IP Block
Hi, Segher,
>
> >>> +- device_type : Should be "rapidio"
> >>
> >> There is no OF binding, so no.
> >
> > So, we need to define it.
>
> If you want to. Until that has been done, don't use
> a "device_type". Linux won't use it, anyway.
Do you have another ideas about that? Only remove
+- device_type : Should be "rapidio"
There is no OF binding, so no.
So, we need to define it.
If you want to. Until that has been done, don't use
a "device_type". Linux won't use it, anyway.
+- compatible : Should be "fsl,rapidio-v0.0" or
"fsl,rapidio-v1.0"
+ and so on.
Hi, Segher,
> -Original Message-
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Add the explanation and sample of
> RapidIO DTS sector to the document of booting-without-of.txt file.
>
> > + k) RapidIO
> > +
> > + Required properties:
> > +
> > +- device_type : Should be "rapidio"
>
> There is no
Hi, Segher,
-Original Message-
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Add the explanation and sample of
RapidIO DTS sector to the document of booting-without-of.txt file.
+ k) RapidIO
+
+ Required properties:
+
+- device_type : Should be rapidio
There is no OF binding, so
+- device_type : Should be rapidio
There is no OF binding, so no.
So, we need to define it.
If you want to. Until that has been done, don't use
a device_type. Linux won't use it, anyway.
+- compatible : Should be fsl,rapidio-v0.0 or
fsl,rapidio-v1.0
+ and so on. The
Hi, Segher,
+- device_type : Should be rapidio
There is no OF binding, so no.
So, we need to define it.
If you want to. Until that has been done, don't use
a device_type. Linux won't use it, anyway.
Do you have another ideas about that? Only remove it?
+-
+- device_type : Should be rapidio
There is no OF binding, so no.
So, we need to define it.
If you want to. Until that has been done, don't use
a device_type. Linux won't use it, anyway.
Do you have another ideas about that? Only remove it?
Yeah, remove it.
Using IP Block
Some silicons of Freescale processor are the same RapidIO controller,
such as mpc8540/mpc8560 are the same (v0.0), mpc8548/mpc8641 are the
same (v1.0). For v1.0 RapidIO controller, should we use mpc8548 or
mpc8641? Those will make people confused.
Not at all. On an 8641 it could be
+ k) RapidIO
+
+ Required properties:
+
+- device_type : Should be "rapidio"
There is no OF binding, so no.
+- compatible : Should be "fsl,rapidio-v0.0" or "fsl,rapidio-v1.0"
+ and so on. The version number is got from IP Block Revision
+ Register of RapidIO controller.
Add the explanation and a sample of RapidIO DTS sector to the document of
booting-without-of.txt file.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Wei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt | 41 ++
1 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git
Add the explanation and a sample of RapidIO DTS sector to the document of
booting-without-of.txt file.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Wei [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt | 41 ++
1 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git
+ k) RapidIO
+
+ Required properties:
+
+- device_type : Should be rapidio
There is no OF binding, so no.
+- compatible : Should be fsl,rapidio-v0.0 or fsl,rapidio-v1.0
+ and so on. The version number is got from IP Block Revision
+ Register of RapidIO controller.
It's
20 matches
Mail list logo
