On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:24:44PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> Whatever string is used should be written into a binding document.
>
> fsl,etsec-v1.6-ptp seems like it would be just as good for that purpose.
>
> Even just fsl,etsec-ptp will identify the binding, though it's lacking in
> identifying the hardware (in the absence of access to the eTSEC ID
> registers).
I read the conversation, and I don't mind admitting that I do not
understand what you both are arguing/discussing about.
How should I set the strings? Like this?
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8313erdb.dts:
ptp_clock@24E00 {
compatible = "fsl,mpc8313-etsec-ptp";
}
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8572ds.dts:
ptp_clock@24E00 {
compatible = "fsl,mpc8572-etsec-ptp";
}
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p2020ds.dts:
ptp_clock@24E00 {
compatible = "fsl,p2020ds-etsec-ptp";
}
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p2020rdb.dts:
ptp_clock@24E00 {
compatible = "fsl,p2020rdb-etsec-ptp";
}
drivers/net/gianfar_ptp.c:
static struct of_device_id match_table[] = {
{ .compatible = "fsl,mpc8313-etsec-ptp" },
{ .compatible = "fsl,mpc8572-etsec-ptp" },
{ .compatible = "fsl,p2020ds-etsec-ptp" },
{ .compatible = "fsl,p2020rdb-etsec-ptp" },
{},
};
Please let me know if this is what you meant.
Thanks,
Richard
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
