Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger <w...@grandegger.com>
> wrote:
>> Grant Likely wrote:
>>> I agree 100% with David's comments, and I have some additional ones below.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger <w...@grandegger.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> + soc8...@e0000000 {
>>>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>>>> + #size-cells = <1>;
>>>> + device_type = "soc";
>>> Drop device_type here too.
>> Grrr, I just realized that removing the devices type "soc" has broken
>> fsl_get_sys_freq(). See:
>>
>> http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v2.6.29/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c#L80
>>
>> We need a quick fix and we could take the occasion to establish a common
>> function for the MPC52xx as well, but it's not obvious to me how to find
>> the SOC node without the device type property.
>
> SoC node should have a compatible property, just like everything else.
>
> compatible = "fsl,mpc8544-immr"; (immr == Internally Memory Mapped Registers)
>
> Many other boards already do this.
Yes, it does, but searching for the SOC node is not straight-forward
because there is no common compatibility string but many CPU-specific
compatibility strings, e.g. "fsl,mpc8560-immr", etc. Have I missed
something?
Unfortunately, other 85xx functions search for the device type "soc" as
well. Therefore I think we must keep the devices type "soc" for the time
being. Kumar?
Wolfgang.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
