>>>>> + 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.
You mean, something needs to say "8572"? I think the "soc" node
would be best for that.
It's all not terribly important, just something to think about.
>>>> 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 :)
Heh okay :-)
> [I'm happy to test any patches related to this, if someone else comes
> up with them]
Well I don't know what the problem is ("it doesn't work" doesn't
say much), and don't have your hardware to test. Maybe we can do
it on IRC again ;-)
Segher
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
