Hmm... sounds reasonable to me. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linuxppc-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Gibson > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 8:30 PM > To: Josh Boyer > Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Xilinx: add compatibility for IBMcoreconnect busses. > > On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 09:46:30PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Thu, 8 May 2008 10:18:50 +1000 > > David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 01:47:31PM -0700, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote: > > > > The IBM coreconnect names are pretty well defined, it appears. In > > > > addition, the Xilinx versions of these IPs seem to be proliferating. > > > > Hence, in the future let's prefer to use the standard names. I've > > > > left the old names in for some backward compatibility for existing > > > > device trees. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Neuendorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > If you're talking about future trees, can't you just slap "simple-bus" > > > on them avoid this monster id table? > > > > What is that and how does it work? > > ePAPR states that busses which cannot be probed as such (i.e. the > device tree is the only way to figure out what's on the bus) should > have "simple-bus" in their compatible property. You can then just add > simple-bus to the of_bus_ids list and avoid adding umpteen other things. > > -- > David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code > david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ > | _way_ _around_! > http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org > https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
