So, like, the other day Segher Boessenkool mumbled:
> > +/ {
> > + model = "StorCenter";
>
> If you can find a real model number, put it in here, instead.
Yep, "StorCenter" is it. No model numer/name beyond that.
> > + compatible = "storcenter";
>
> Needs a manufacturer name in there.
Right. Will use:
compatible = "iomega,storcenter"
> > + 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] }
> > + bus-frequency = <0>;
>
> Is this filled in anywhere? Please document that, if so.
Right. boot{loader,wrapper}
> > + 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.
How about "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" instead?
That would be similar to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> > + store-gathering = <0>; /* 0 == off, !0 == on */
>
> Don't define this as "!0", but as "1".
OK.
> > + [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> > + device_type = "i2c";
>
> No device_type, there is no I2C binding.
Right.
> > + 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";
> > + mpic: [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK.
> > + [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> > + clock-frequency = <d# 100000000>; /* Hz */
>
> 100MHz PCI? Interesting.
Good point. 66666666 seems more likely...
Thanks for the review and help here!
jdl
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
