>> + UIC0: interrupt-controller0 {
>> + compatible = "ibm,uic-440gp","ibm,uic";
>
> The first compatible entry should always be the precise model, so in
> this case "ibm,uic-440epx".
This isn't really _required_, but it is a very good idea in
almost all cases (the exception is for very generic or legacy
devices).
> If it is (supposed to be) identical to
> the UIC in the 440GP, it can also have an "ibm,uic-440gp" entry, but
> since I believe all the UICs are supposed to operate the same, I think
> that's implicit in the "ibm,uic" entry.
Sure, but there is no harm in having the better qualified 440gp
name in there as well -- bytes are cheap :-)
>> + SDR0: sdr {
>
> What is the SDR?
>
>> + compatible = "ibm,sdr-440ep";
>> + dcr-reg = <00e 002>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + CPR0: cpr {
>
> And the CPR?
Yeah, better names please -- if possible, something that someone
without knowledge of this SoC will understand what it is.
>> + [EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
>> + device_type = "rom";
>> + compatible = "direct-mapped";
>> + probe-type = "CFI";
>
> This flash binding needs to be replaced, but I guess that's not really
> your problem.
Yeah, that's my problem, thanks for the prod :-)
Segher
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
