On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 08:07:17AM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
[snip]
> > I usually put device_type, compatible and reg at the top of the block,
> > to announce what the node actually is before giving all the details.
> >
> > Also, apart from the stray space in the compatible, I'm guessing that
> > the 440EPx bridge is actually more-or-less like the PCI bridges on
> > other 4xx chips, so we should have a more general compatible string
> > too.
>
> Yes, it is "more-or-less" like any other 4xx PCI core. So it really would
> make
> sense to define it more generally. Something like:
>
> compatible = "ibm,pci-440epx", "ibm,pci4xx";
>
> or even:
>
> compatible = "ibm,pci-440epx", "ibm,pci";
>
> ?
Hrm.. "xx" is ugly, and "ibm,pci" isn't specific enough. I think
we're better off just using the oldest similar chip. Since this is
vanilla PCI, I think that makes it "ibm,pci-405gp"
> > Is the 440EPx a vanilla PCI or a PCI-X bridge? If the later that
> > should be reflected in the name and compatible as well.
>
> It's a vanilla PCI bridge.
Ok, so it is different from 440GP which is PCI-X.
--
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
