On 10/17/07, Marian Balakowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Gibson wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> + [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> >> + device_type = "rom";
> >> + compatible = "direct-mapped";
> >> + reg = <0c000000 02000000>;
> >> + probe-type = "CFI";
> >> + bank-width = <2>;
> >> + partitions = <00000000 00060000
> >> + 00060000 00020000
> >> + 00080000 00020000
> >> + 000a0000 00020000
> >> + 000c0000 00200000
> >> + 002c0000 01b40000
> >> + 01e00000 00200000>;
> >> + partition-names =
> >> "uboot\0env\0redund_env\0dtb\0kernel\0rootfs\0config";
> >> + };
> >
> > First, this is the old flash binding, please use the new one.
>
> Ok.
>
> > Second, is the flash really part of the SoC?
>
> Not directly, it is attached to LocalPlus Bus Controller, which is
> part of the SoC. And the soc@ is currently the only recognized of bus
> for mpc5200, so if we want to move it to some other place new bindings
> will need to be defined for lpc (LocalPlus Controller) bus. But I am
> not quite sure where this should be attached. Bus is under LPC which
> is a part of the SoC, but on the other hand Soc address range covers
> only device control registers not the address space LPC may handle
> (that may be varied). Any ideas?
My vote is for an lpc node off the root of the tree for devices like
this to hang off.
Cheers,
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(403) 399-0195
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
