On Sep 11, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > Kumar Gala wrote: >> Yep. However, after some discussion with Segher on this for 83xx/ >> 85xx/86xx I think we want to keep the reg prop and have it cover >> the initial soc registers [size on 83xx is 0x100, size on 85xx/ >> 86xx would be 0x1000]. >> What we need is a saner way to determine immr on 82xx & 8xx. >> Segher's rule is that a given "reg" prop shouldn't overlap w/any >> other reg. We currently violate that on 8xx. Not as clear on >> 82xx if we do that. >> I'm thinking on 8xx we should move to grabbing a top level compat >> value (mpc8xx) and use the SPRN_IMMR to set immrbase. > > Any particular reason to special-case it, when we already need code > to do it the other way for every other fsl soc?
If you suggest a sane way of getting the value let me know. The mpc8xx doesn't appear to have what I would call 'soc' level registers like 83xx/85xx/86xx does. How do you propose we determine the immrbase? >> On mpc82xx-pq2 we could add a immr "device" to search for. > > Enh. The soc node *is* the immr "device". I'd rather add a node > for the "initial" registers (they generally don't involve > configuring the immr "bus" itself, but rather the chipselect bus > and other miscellaneous things) if needed, get rid of /soc/reg, and > have ranges cover the whole immr. > And why is 82xx-pq2 special? Wouldn't you need this on 83xx, 85xx, > and 86xx as well? The range will cover the whole immr space on 83xx/85xx/86xx. 82xx-pq2 is special in that its soc regs are in the middle of the immr address map. - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
