On Wednesday 26 March 2008 16:40, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > >> - Using another device node with a compatible value set to > >> "linear-ram" (or > >> something similar). This would support both volatile and non-volatile > >> devices, and a property could be added to specify if the device is > >> volatile > >> or not. > > > "memory-mapped-memory" perhaps :-) > > > Or, just "memory". Although that one might play havoc with some > > I'd suggest "ram" and "rom" then. Luckily the device trees don't contain > binding for the real RAM chips yet. :-)
And when it will we'll be in trouble. Here are a few names. I like physmap-r[ao]m better. Does anyone have another suggestion ? I'd like to send a revised patch. linear-r[ao]m linear-mapped-r[ao]m mapped-r[ao]m memory-mapped-r[ao]m physmap-r[ao]m > > not-quite-correct main memory probing code. > > You mean the there's parsers that search the "compatible" prop for > "memory" as well as "device_type" prop? -- Laurent Pinchart CSE Semaphore Belgium Chaussée de Bruxelles, 732A B-1410 Waterloo Belgium T +32 (2) 387 42 59 F +32 (2) 387 42 75
pgpS3dubbrOIr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
