On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >> The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other >> e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be >> consistent going forward. > > Why are we not using the generic names recommendation? > > Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use > "fsl"? > > -Scott
I have mixed feelings on this. The PowerPC,NAME has a long history & precedence. Is there any use or value to change this? - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
