>>> + fsl,cpm-brg = <1>;
>>> + fsl,cpm-command = <0090>;
>>
>> Are these two documented? Your patch queue is too
>> long for me to check for myself.
>>
> In fact, there were different approaches to describe CPM, and I am
> sure this is not the end.
> These aren't documented, and I think we do not need that so far: I
> am pretty sure this will change
> to something more comfortable as new similar ports will follow-up.
> Meanwhile, values are self-description
> for anybody familiar with this SoC.
Even when it is a work in progress still, it would be a good
idea to start documenting the device binding.
>>> - [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>>> + [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>>
>> Maybe use a more generic name, I have no idea what a
>> "BCSR" is.
>>
> IIRC, QE stuff, when first introduced, had bcsr bindings, that were
> discussed and agreed here.
Sure, that's not the point.
Since you are using generic names, the only use for the "name"
of a node is for a human reader to understand your tree. Maybe
everyone using this specific SoC knows what a BCSR is; or maybe
there is a more friendly name you could use.
Segher
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
