On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:55:34 +0200 Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Also, these made-up names make you do more work: you'll need to > > > > who said they were made up? > > I did. These names do not refer to some physical part you can buy. right, they refer to devices in multiple physical parts you can buy. Part-you-can-buy documentation clearly indicates the SEC version in that part, in the form "SEC X.Y", i.e, it's not something made up that's not already in freescale documentation. > >> write up a binding for them, explaining exactly what a 1.0 device > >> etc. is (or at least point to documentation for it). If you use > >> a name that refers to some device that people can easily google > >> for documentation, you can skip this (well, you might need to > >> write a binding anyway; but at least you won't have to explain > >> what the device _is_). > > > > documentation is available in the usual places, and it specifically > > points out which SEC version it references. > > I can't find a manual online for "freescale sec"; googling > for "freescale sec-1.0" finds a manual for the PowerQUICC I; > is that the right one? I don't know, so the binding needs > to explain it to me. the binding shouldn't be responsible for google's shortcomings (that hit is correct, btw). > Going from SoC name -> SEC version is easy, but the other way around > not so. > > Anyway, minor stuff. sounds like you're pointing out a lack of "SEC versions guide" documentation of Freescale.. > > Plus, as I mentioned > > before, a lot of the differences between the SEC versions are miniscule > > feature bits scattered across the programming model. > > I don't see how this is relevant, sorry. > I'm under the impression that listing the differences (assuming they're easily obtainable) would lead to unnecessary b-w-of bloat. > >> Using actual model names also reduces the namespace pollution > >> (hopefully Freescale will not create some other MPC8272 device > >> ever, so "fsl,mpc8272-whatever" will never be a nice name to > >> use for any other device; OTOH, it's likely that Freescale will > >> create some other device called "SEC" (there are only so many > >> TLAs, after all), so "fsl,sec-n.m" isn't as future-proof. > > > > I doubt that; the SEC has been around for about a decade now and that > > hasn't happened. > > You'll have to admit a three-letter acronym is a bigger namespace > squatter than a nice long name is. But it's your namespace, I don't > care. > > i tried googling for "freescale sec" to find any other devices called > SEC, but that didn't work out. What is "insider trading"? ;-) I don't know what google does; I'd search freescale documentation directly. Kim _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
