On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 04:14:07AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>>- if (of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL,
>>>>"amcc,ppc460ex-crypto")) {
>>>>+ if (of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL,
>>>>"amcc,ppc460ex-crypto") ||
>>>>+ of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL,
>>>>"amcc,ppc460gt-crypto")) {
>>>
>>>If the device is actually compatible, the device tree node should
>>>claim
>>>it is, and you do not need this code change.
>>
>>That was actually my first instinct, however I tried to follow the
>>current convention in the glacier and canyonlands DTS files, which is
>>to set every device compatible to 460gt or 460ex, depending on the
>>processor. Many of the devices are identical between the two, since
>>they are variations of the same SoC, so which is the preferred method?
>>Follow the device tree convention and add the compatibility check in
>>the driver,
>
>That is not the convention.
>
>>or alter the device trees? I'll send another patch if it's
>>the latter.
>
>You say
>
> compatible = "amcc,ppc460gt-crypto", "amcc,ppc460ex-crypto";
I went ahead and modified the addition of the node to the glacier DTS
file to do this instead. I think this specific patch can be dropped.
josh
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
