On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 12:09:03 +0200
Ilya Yanok <ya...@emcraft.com> wrote:
> + compatible = "mpc8308_p1m";
This needs a vendor prefix.
> + i...@3000 {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> + cell-index = <0>;
> + compatible = "fsl-i2c";
> + reg = <0x3000 0x100>;
> + interrupts = <14 0x8>;
> + interrupt-parent = <&ipic>;
> + dfsrr;
> + f...@50 {
> + compatible = "ramtron,24c64";
> + reg = <0x50>;
> + };
> + };
> +
> + i...@3100 {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> + cell-index = <0>;
> + compatible = "fsl-i2c";
> + reg = <0x3100 0x100>;
> + interrupts = <15 0x8>;
> + interrupt-parent = <&ipic>;
> + dfsrr;
> + p...@28 {
> + compatible = "maxim,ds1050";
> + reg = <0x28>;
> + };
> + sens...@48 {
> + compatible = "maxim,max6625";
> + reg = <0x48>;
> + };
> + sens...@49 {
> + compatible = "maxim,max6625";
> + reg = <0x49>;
> + };
> + sens...@4b {
> + compatible = "maxim,max6625";
> + reg = <0x4b>;
> + };
> + };
Why "i...@3000" and "i...@3100" rather than "i...@3000" and "i...@3100"?
Likewise for the sensor nodes.
Drop cell-index; it's not part of the fsl i2c binding (plus, they
probably shouldn't both be zero...).
> + enet0: ether...@24000 {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> + ranges = <0x0 0x24000 0x1000>;
> +
> + cell-index = <0>;
> + device_type = "network";
> + model = "eTSEC";
> + compatible = "gianfar";
> + reg = <0x24000 0x1000>;
> + local-mac-address = [ 00 00 00 00 00 00 ];
> + interrupts = <32 0x8 33 0x8 34 0x8>;
> + interrupt-parent = <&ipic>;
> + phy-handle = < &phy1 >;
> + fsl,magic-packet;
8308 does not have magic packet.
> + g...@c00 {
> + #gpio-cells = <2>;
> + device_type = "gpio";
> + compatible = "fsl,mpc8308-gpio", "fsl,mpc8349-gpio";
> + reg = <0xc00 0x18>;
> + interrupts = <74 0x8>;
> + interrupt-parent = <&ipic>;
> + gpio-controller;
> + };
Drop device_type.
> + pci0: p...@e0009000 {
> + #address-cells = <3>;
> + #size-cells = <2>;
> + #interrupt-cells = <1>;
> + device_type = "pci";
> + compatible = "fsl,mpc8308-pcie", "fsl,mpc8314-pcie";
> + reg = <0xe0009000 0x00001000
> + 0xb0000000 0x01000000>;
> + ranges = <0x02000000 0 0xa0000000 0xa0000000 0 0x10000000
> + 0x01000000 0 0x00000000 0xb1000000 0 0x00800000>;
> + bus-range = <0 0>;
> + interrupt-map-mask = <0xf800 0 0 7>;
> + interrupt-map = <0 0 0 1 &ipic 1 8
> + 0 0 0 2 &ipic 1 8
> + 0 0 0 3 &ipic 1 8
> + 0 0 0 4 &ipic 1 8>;
Should interrupt-map-mask be <0 0 0 7>? Or possibly <0 0 0 0> with
just one map entry?
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
