On Sep 2, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On 09/01/2011 10:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >> >> 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? > > It's inconsistent with all of our other compatibles. My understanding > is that for older chips, the naming was from a managed numberspace -- is > "e500" or "eXXXX" something that was explicitly granted to us by > power.org, or just something we started calling our cores? > > -Scott
The names for PPC cores are NOT granted by anyone. However, its pretty clear that FSLs current naming is: e500v1 e500v2 e500mc e5500 e6500 e600 e300c1 e300c2 e300c3 e300c4 e200.. - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
