On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:06 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>> + 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"?
Only in so much that we need something that states what the actual
processor is.
>>>> + [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?
No. I've had enough of this device tree foo for a while :)
[I'm happy to test any patches related to this, if someone else comes
up with them]
- k
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
