>>> + PowerPC,[EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>>
>> Maybe it would be good to use "PowerPC,e500" instead -- it would
>> make it easier to probe for the actual CPU type, that way. Not
>> that Linux uses the name/compatible here at all ;-)
>
> I thought about this, not sure what the best solution is.
Since the CPU cores on all these SoCs are identical (well, there
might be a few revisions, or different cache sizes or such -- minor
differences that can be probed for separately), it probably is a
good idea to name them in the tree instead of having each client
have its own table.
Or is there anything about the CPU that can be derived from "8572"
but not from "e500"?
>>> + [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>>
>> You should put an interrupt-parent in here, so you can get rid of
>> it in all the children.
>
> Are interrupt-parent's inherited by child nodes?
A node without "interrupt-parent" uses the regular tree parent for
walking the interrupt "tree".
>> And then there's the pci_bridge thing we're discussing on IRC, of
>> course -- basically, get rid of the pci_bridge pseudo-node, and
>> move the interrupt-map for the south-bridge devices into the
>> south-bridge node.
>
> Leaving the interrupt-map in the PHB because that works and moving it
> down has issues.
Okay, fair enough. Are you looking at resolving those kernel issues?
Segher
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
