On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:18:13AM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> David Gibson wrote:
> > As I think I said about another tree, this mdio-under-bcsr arrangement
> > is pretty strange. What's going on here.
>
> As I answered then, it's just the way the hardware is. I didn't design
> it. :-P
I obviously missed when you answered this before, I was hoping for
some more detail.
I mean, obviously the MDIO bus is accessed via some of the
board-control registers. What I'm questioning is whether it makes
sense to have a distinct node to represent the mdio bus, or whether
the phys should just hang straight of the bcsr node.
> >> + [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> >> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >> + #size-cells = <1>;
> >> + device_type = "soc";
> >
> > Ditch the device_type.
>
> No, it's used by the bootwrapper. I'll get rid of it if you want to
> write a find_node_by_compatible() function. :-)
Well, now that libfdt is merged, there is one :-p.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
