This isn't a problem with this device tree, but it's probably time we
started establishing some conventional generic names for nand flash
and board-control devices.
So, to start the ball rolling, I've seen several names for nand flash
nodes, I'd suggest we standardise on "nand-flash".
What's wr
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 01:43:49AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 March 2008, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 04:39:30AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > > This isn't a problem with this device tree, but it's probably time we
> > > > started establishing some conv
On Tuesday 11 March 2008, David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 04:39:30AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > This isn't a problem with this device tree, but it's probably time we
> > > started establishing some conventional generic names for nand flash
> > > and board-control devices.
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 04:39:30AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > This isn't a problem with this device tree, but it's probably time we
> > started establishing some conventional generic names for nand flash
> > and board-control devices.
> >
> > So, to start the ball rolling, I've seen sever
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 08:35:39AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2008, at 6:27 PM, David Gibson wrote:
[snip]
> > I've seen several variants for board control devices (cpld, bcsr,
> > fpga, etc.) I suggest we standardise on "board-control"
>
> I don't see any reason for this. If I have a c
>> I've seen several variants for board control devices (cpld, bcsr,
>> fpga, etc.) I suggest we standardise on "board-control"
>
> I don't see any reason for this. If I have a cpld or fpga why not
> just call it that. I don't see what calling it 'board-control' gets
> us. There may be non-board
On Mar 6, 2008, at 4:42 AM, Li Yang wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Li Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8377_mds.dts | 66
> +
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8378_mds.dts | 66
> +
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8379_m
On Mar 6, 2008, at 6:27 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> [snip]
>> +[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
>> +reg = <1 0x0 0x8000>;
>> +compatible = "fsl,mpc837xmds-bcsr";
>> +};
>> +
>> +[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
>
> This isn't a problem with this
> This isn't a problem with this device tree, but it's probably time we
> started establishing some conventional generic names for nand flash
> and board-control devices.
>
> So, to start the ball rolling, I've seen several names for nand flash
> nodes, I'd suggest we standardise on "nand-flash".
[snip]
> + [EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
> + reg = <1 0x0 0x8000>;
> + compatible = "fsl,mpc837xmds-bcsr";
> + };
> +
> + [EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
This isn't a problem with this device tree, but it's probably time we
started establis
Signed-off-by: Li Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8377_mds.dts | 66 +
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8378_mds.dts | 66 +
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8379_mds.dts | 66 +
arch/powerp
11 matches
Mail list logo
