On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Josh Boyer <jwbo...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 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
>
Thanks, go ahead and drop it. I got buried here at work with our
fiscal year ending.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
