On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 01:27:58 +0200
Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Yes. As a side note, since there are multiple devices that contain
> >> e.g. a sec-1.0, it would be prudent to describe the exact incarnation
> >> in the device tree, like "mpc8272-sec" or something, in either "m
Yes. As a side note, since there are multiple devices that contain
e.g. a sec-1.0, it would be prudent to describe the exact incarnation
in the device tree, like "mpc8272-sec" or something, in either "model"
but 'fsl,sec-X.Y' /does/ describe the exact incarnation,
No it doesn't. If it's on a
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:19:05 +0200
Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, these made-up names make you do more work: you'll need to
> >>>
> >>> who said they were made up?
> >>
> >> I did. These names do not refer to some physical part you can buy.
> >
> > right, they refer to
Also, these made-up names make you do more work: you'll need to
who said they were made up?
I did. These names do not refer to some physical part you can buy.
right, they refer to devices in multiple physical parts you can buy.
Part-you-can-buy documentation clearly indicates the SEC versio
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:55:34 +0200
Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Also, these made-up names make you do more work: you'll need to
> >
> > who said they were made up?
>
> I did. These names do not refer to some physical part you can buy.
right, they refer to devices in multip
Also, these made-up names make you do more work: you'll need to
who said they were made up?
I did. These names do not refer to some physical part you can buy.
write up a binding for them, explaining exactly what a 1.0 device
etc. is (or at least point to documentation for it). If you use
a
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:37:12 +0200
Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm really don't like "fsl,sec1.0" or any of the variants as a
> > compatible property either because it can easily be abused (it's not
> > anchored to a specific physical part so the meaning can shift over
> > ti
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:29:59 -0700
"Grant Likely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Kim Phillips
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > delete obsolete device-type property, delete model property
> > (use compatible property instead), prepend "fsl," to Freescale
> > specific
I'm really don't like "fsl,sec1.0" or any of the variants as a
compatible property either because it can easily be abused (it's not
anchored to a specific physical part so the meaning can shift over
time); but that is another argument and it is well documented in other
email threads
(http://thre
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Kim Phillips
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> delete obsolete device-type property, delete model property
> (use compatible property instead), prepend "fsl," to Freescale
> specific properties. Add nodes to device trees that are missing them,
> and fix broken property v
delete obsolete device-type property, delete model property
(use compatible property instead), prepend "fsl," to Freescale
specific properties. Add nodes to device trees that are missing them,
and fix broken property values in other trees.
Signed-off-by: Kim Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
change
11 matches
Mail list logo
