On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 02:00:50AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Oct 7, 2010, at 1:37 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> >> @ -1125,7 +1128,10 @@ static struct of_device_id mpc85xx_mc_err_of_match[]
> >> = {
> >> { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8569-memory-controller", },
> >> { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8572-memory-controller", },
> >> { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8349-memory-controller", },
> >> + { .compatible = "fsl,p1020-memory-controller", },
> >> + { .compatible = "fsl,p1021-memory-controller", },
> >> { .compatible = "fsl,p2020-memory-controller", },
> >> + { .compatible = "fsl,p4080-memory-controller", },
> >
> > This line should be here ;)
>
> should NOT be here.
Hm. Are you sure? I thought that only L2 cache controller is
not applicable (and based on Scott's comment I removed
the l2 cache compatible entry for p4080). But I guess
memory-controller is somewhat similar to all other 85xx?
If it's not, I can surely prepare a patch that removes
p4080 entry.
Thanks,
--
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmai...@gmail.com
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
