On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 11:04:59AM -0700, John Linn wrote:
> This new file adds support for the ML507 board which
> has a Virtex 5 FXT FPGA with a 440.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Linn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> V2
> Converted to dts-v1 format.
> Changed to match a newer reference design.
>
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/virtex440-ml507.dts | 296
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 296 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/virtex440-ml507.dts
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/virtex440-ml507.dts
> b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/virtex440-ml507.dts
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..d10a993
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/virtex440-ml507.dts
> @@ -0,0 +1,296 @@
> +/*
> + * This file supports the Xilinx ML507 board with the 440 processor.
> + * A reference design for the FPGA is provided at http://git.xilinx.com.
> + *
> + * (C) Copyright 2008 Xilinx, Inc.
> + *
> + * This file is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License
> + * version 2. This program is licensed "as is" without any warranty of any
> + * kind, whether express or implied.
> + */
> +
> +/dts-v1/;
> +
> +/ {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> + compatible = "xlnx,virtex440";
> + dcr-parent = <&ppc440_0>;
> + model = "testing";
> + DDR2_SDRAM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> + device_type = "memory";
> + reg = < 0 0x10000000 >;
> + } ;
> + chosen {
> + bootargs = "console=ttyS0 ip=on root=/dev/ram";
Bootargs like this should not typically go in the dts file.
> + linux,stdout-path = "/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]";
> + } ;
> + cpus {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #cpus = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> + ppc440_0: [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> + clock-frequency = "";
Presumably this is supposed to be filled in by the bootloader. But in
any case it shouldn't be a string.
[snip]
> + DMA0: [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> + compatible = "xlnx,ll-dma-1.00.a";
> + dcr-reg = < 0x80 0x11 >;
> + interrupt-parent = <&xps_intc_0>;
> + interrupts = < 9 2 0xa 2 >;
> + } ;
Putting devices under the cpu node is certainly... atypical. It's not
obviously wrong, for a dcr device like this, but we probably want a
little more discussion before establishing a convention like this.
--
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
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
