On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 09:59:24PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> Yeah, better names please -- if possible, something that someone
> >>> without knowledge of this SoC will understand what it is.
> >>
> >> I think the names are probably ok - I'm assuming they're in keeping
> >> with the convention I've used of using the same names / abbreviations
> >> as in the CPU user manual. I'm asking just for my own information,
> >> although a comment might not be a bad idea.
>
> Fine with me -- I personally prefer "system-device-controller"
> and "clock-power-controller" or similar, but that is mostly a
> matter of taste. As long as it's human readable it's fine.
Actually, it occurs to me that I've only sometimes been using that
convention for the names: basically just for the weirdo chip control
devices that don't have a more widespread generic name. I *have* been
strictly keeping to that convention for the labels in the dts (which
is why the PLB<->OPB bridge node is labelled POB rather than OPB, for
example).
> > - Required properties:
> > + - compatible : should contain the specific model of flash
> > chip(s) used
>
> "if known".
Added.
> > + followed by either "cfi-flash" or "jedec-flash"
>
>
> > + Flash partitions
> > + - reg :
> > + - read-only : (optional)
>
> I'll hold off commenting on this until you've finish writing it,
> you probably know my opinion about it anyway :-)
Heh.. actually I was kind of hoping for your input on what's still
missing. For example, I don't know what the necessary extra
properties for JEDEC chips are.
> One thing though -- what _exactly_ does "read-only" signify?
That's... a good question.
--
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
