On Thu, 8 May 2008 13:30:06 +1000 David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 09:46:30PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Thu, 8 May 2008 10:18:50 +1000 > > David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 01:47:31PM -0700, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote: > > > > The IBM coreconnect names are pretty well defined, it appears. In > > > > addition, the Xilinx versions of these IPs seem to be proliferating. > > > > Hence, in the future let's prefer to use the standard names. I've > > > > left the old names in for some backward compatibility for existing > > > > device trees. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Neuendorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > If you're talking about future trees, can't you just slap "simple-bus" > > > on them avoid this monster id table? > > > > What is that and how does it work? > > ePAPR states that busses which cannot be probed as such (i.e. the > device tree is the only way to figure out what's on the bus) should > have "simple-bus" in their compatible property. You can then just add > simple-bus to the of_bus_ids list and avoid adding umpteen other things. Hm. Hopefully ePAPR will be released soon. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
