Kumar Gala wrote: > On Jul 18, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Scott Wood wrote: >> Kumar Gala wrote: >>> Does 'fsl,cpm' really mean anything useful? >> >> Yes. It's can't be used on its own to show the complete programming >> model, but there are lots of common things that it does indicate. >> >> get_brgfreq() uses it to locate nodes which have an fsl,brg- frequency >> property. > > I think we should introduce 'fsl,cpm' in a second pass once its clear > what all the common points are. We can than also see if QE fits into > it at that point.
Upon further thought (and upon being clearly outvoted), I agree -- what's common among CPMs today may not be among future CPMs/QEs. In the absence of a commitment from marketing to call it something else if certain things change, it's no more meaningful than "xx"-type names. >> The CPM binding is changed in so many other ways that are much harder >> to make backward compatible that I don't really see much point in >> doing so here. > > Can you enumerate some of the other changes. The hardest would probably be the PCI node, whose reg property definition changed (the previous tree was including other things, such as DMA controllers, in the PCI register resource). The CPM node also had its reg property changed, though I don't think anything was using it yet. The old way of specifying the 8272ads BCSR (in the /memory node) is just too broken to leave in the device tree. The old compatible names and custom properties could be left in for a little while for existing boards, though. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
