David Gibson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 12:00:22PM -0500, Rune Torgersen wrote: >> We ran ito the same issue. >> We did option 3, as it was efinetly the easiest, > > I think this is the best option in principle. > >> here is the sram entry in our dts: > > Except that your implementation of it is not good. > > You're relying on the old obsolete flash binding with the "probe-type" > field. The solution should be adapted to the new approach which uses > values in the "compatible" field to indicate various sorts of flash > device.
Yea, I know. But it was the easiest way of doing it at the time we did our port.... In a timecrunch, easier is sometimes better than correct. :) _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
