On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:31:45PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
+ local...@ffe05000 {
+ #address-cells = 2;
+ #size-cells = 1;
+ compatible = fsl,elbc, simple-bus;
If this has an elbc more recent than 1.0 (looks like it), we should
indicate that here.
+
On Apr 22, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:31:45PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
+ local...@ffe05000 {
+ #address-cells = 2;
+ #size-cells = 1;
+ compatible = fsl,elbc, simple-bus;
If this has an elbc more recent
Kumar Gala wrote:
If this has an elbc more recent than 1.0 (looks like it), we should
indicate that here.
that might be the case, but I leave it to u-boot to do that.
Why? There's no p2020 with an older eLBC, and there's no block version
register.
-Scott
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
If this has an elbc more recent than 1.0 (looks like it), we should
indicate that here.
that might be the case, but I leave it to u-boot to do that.
Why? There's no p2020 with an older eLBC, and there's no block
version
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
If this has an elbc more recent than 1.0 (looks like it), we should
indicate that here.
that might be the case, but I leave it to u-boot to do that.
Why? There's no p2020 with an older eLBC, and there's
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
If this has an elbc more recent than 1.0 (looks like it), we
should
indicate that here.
that might be the case, but I leave it to u-boot to do that.
Why?
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
If this has an elbc more recent than 1.0 (looks like it), we should
indicate that here.
that might be the case, but I leave it to u-boot to
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
If this has an elbc more recent than 1.0 (looks like it), we
should
indicate that here.
On Apr 22, 2009, at 1:16 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
What we care about at this point is irrelevant, given the PITA
it would be to change the device trees (or u-boot) that are
already in use once we do begin to care.
Which is exactly why I didn't put it in the .dts right now.
+ L2: l2-cache-control...@2 {
+ compatible = fsl,p2020-l2-cache-controller;
+ reg = 0x2 0x1000;
+ cache-line-size = 32; // 32 bytes
+ cache-size = 0x10; // L2, 1M
+
10 matches
Mail list logo
