On 12.08.2013, at 23:22, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2013-08-12 at 21:17 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: >> Am Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:03:24 +1000 >> schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org>: >> >>> On Mon, 2013-08-12 at 10:07 +0530, Prerna Saxena wrote: >>> >>> .../... >>> >>>> I dont know what context lead to this observation. >>>> However, PAPR mentions the following nomenclature guideline: >>>> >>>> "The value of this property shall be of the form: “PowerPC,<name>”, >>>> where <name> is the name of the processor chip which may be displayed to >>>> the user. <name> shall not contain underscores." >>> >>> This actually comes from the original Open Firmware binding for PowerPC >>> processors, which PAPR inherits largely from. Thus this naming scheme >>> should apply to all PowerPC processors when a device-tree is involved. >> >> Well, I think it should be used when an Open Firmware environment is >> used. When you boot via ePAPR device tree, the name should be "cpu" >> instead, according to the ePAPR specification. > > Yeah well ... this is a gratuituous change in ePAPR, I don't think it > matters really what the name is anyway. I'd suggest sticking to the > original OF binding.
Can't we just include the PowerPC, bit as part of the fw_name field in the class? I don't think we have any CPUs that can be used both in ePAPR and sPAPR environments. So the POWER7 fw_name field would just contain "PowerPC,POWER7" and the device tree creation code merely appends the @%d piece. Alex
