Oops, forgot to add devicetree-discuss to the cc: list g.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:13 PM, John Rigby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So get_immrbase can function without a device_type = "soc" >> property in the soc node. >> >> The "soc" node should really be named "immr" >> because it does not include the entire soc, however >> u-boot currently looks up this node by name for >> a clock fixup so leave it "soc" for now. We will change >> it later after 5121 u-boot uses the immr alias instead >> of the node name. > > Is it not sufficient to search the tree for a node with the > <chip>-immr compatible value? I don't think this is the intended use > case of aliases. > > g. > > -- > Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. > Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. > -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
