On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:39:08AM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Tuesday 11 March 2008 01:45, David Gibson wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 12:00:22PM -0500, Rune Torgersen wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] > > > 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. > > I'll implement that and post a patch after completing the ppc-to-powerpc > migration. > > > > 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. > > What "compatible" values should I use for ROM and RAM mappings ?
That I'm not so sure of. We'll need to find some consensus.
There may be existing IEEE1275 bindings for roms, which we should
investigate. Arguably RAM should be represented by a memory node, but
that's going to get messy for this sort of application.
--
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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
