On Jul 11, 2012, at 4:58 AM, Jiucheng Xu wrote: > > > On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 06:48 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: >> On Jul 10, 2012, at 3:39 AM, Xu Jiucheng wrote: >>> --- >>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1021rdb-pc.dtsi | 236 >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1021rdb-pc_32b.dts | 96 ++++++++++++ >>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1021rdb-pc_36b.dts | 96 ++++++++++++ >>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1021rdb.dts | 96 ------------ >>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1021rdb.dtsi | 236 >>> ----------------------------- >>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1021rdb_36b.dts | 96 ------------ >>> 6 files changed, 428 insertions(+), 428 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1021rdb-pc.dtsi >>> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1021rdb-pc_32b.dts >>> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1021rdb-pc_36b.dts >>> delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1021rdb.dts >>> delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1021rdb.dtsi >>> delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1021rdb_36b.dts >> >> Do we really need a 32 & 36 bit device tree for this board? Isnt the memory >> fixed so why not just have 32b? >> > I have no idea, 36 bit is already there in the history release of SDK, > If it is not necessary for upstream, I can resend a new patch without 36 > bit. >> Also, why are you removing the dts for the older P1021RDB?? >> >> - k > This dts for the older P1021RDB was committed by me. I just rename these > files in order to keep uniformity with other platforms, e.g > "P1020rdb-pc.dtsi p1020mbg-pc.dtsi". If you think it doesn't matter, > please ignore this patch.
Sorry, I was thinking there was a different board for P1021RDB (older than P1021RDB-PC), like we have for P1020RDB. > If AMP is a specific application as Timur says, please ignore the AMP > patch. - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
