On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 08:13:55PM +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote: [...] > My thinking: > > Freescale soc register space: "fsl,soc" > generic soc device: "soc" (or maybe "linux,soc" better?) > > I know, Scott Wood is pushing "xxxx-immr" thing forward... but > I don't like that name because SOC isn't only device with the > Internal Memory Mapped Registers. (Think of QE placed outside > of "soc"/"immr" node). > > Though, "soc" by itself is fully unfortunate name. QE is the > part of SOC too, as we used to call it when speaking of hardware. > But logically we divide things for "core soc" and "core soc's > companion/communication/offload modules", i.e. QE/CPMs/... > > We can remove that ambiguity by moving QE/CPMs nodes inside > the soc node. Then indeed -immr would be the best compatible for > the "soc" node.
Oh, and yes, I'm aware that CPM's IMMRs are relocatable, and that's [most probably] why we have CPMs outside of soc node. So, my point is that that -immr name is too vague, so in my opinion we should avoid using it. -- Anton Vorontsov email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] backup email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
