On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 11:13 -0700, Grant Erickson wrote:
> In terms of the device tree expression, you would both favor something akin
> to the following?
>
> - compatible = "ibm,emac-405exr", "ibm,emac4";
> + compatible = "ibm,emac-405exr", "ibm,emac4", "ibm,emac4sync";
On Tuesday 01 July 2008, Grant Erickson wrote:
> > Yes, this was my feeling too. Not the size of the dtb but more the
> > increased complexity of the EMAC device node. I would prefer Ben's idea
> > with this new compatible entry too.
>
> In terms of the device tree expression, you would both favor
On 6/30/08 11:37 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 July 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> Stefan and/or Ben:
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on this?
>>
>> I was hesitating a bit... do we really need to be -that- flexible ?
>>
>> That is, either that or use some new compatible entry to detect t
On Tuesday 01 July 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Stefan and/or Ben:
> >
> > Any thoughts on this?
>
> I was hesitating a bit... do we really need to be -that- flexible ?
>
> That is, either that or use some new compatible entry to detect the new
> reg layout and whack that as a feature bi
> Stefan and/or Ben:
>
> Any thoughts on this?
I was hesitating a bit... do we really need to be -that- flexible ?
That is, either that or use some new compatible entry to detect the new
reg layout and whack that as a feature bit instead ? The advantage
of the later is that we have the possibili
On 6/24/08 5:08 PM, Grant Erickson wrote:
> Various instances of the EMAC core have varying: 1) number of address
> match slots, 2) width of the registers for handling address match slots,
> 3) number of registers for handling address match slots and 4) base
> offset for those registers.
>
> As th
