On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 08:46:32AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2008, at 1:54 AM, David Gibson wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 06:41:24PM -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote: [snip] > >> + [EMAIL PROTECTED],0 { > > > > I'm not entirely convinced on this two-level representation. I think > > the FSL people need to get together and define a binding (or set of > > bindings) for their various chipselect style external bus bridges. > > It seems reasonable if you had a FPGA off of the localbus to have a > two level representation. One for the localbus controller on the FSL > part and the child to describe the FPGA. > > What are you expecting beyond what we have today? I guess I'm asking > what's missing from the localbus nodes we have?
Sorry, I was probably misleading. All I really meant is that I don't know enough about these FSL bus bridge arrangements to assess if this representation is the most sensible one. I'm presuming that this chipselect bridge unit is a more-or-less standard ASIC appearing on lots of the FSL chips, so it would be nice to have a standard binding for them, as we do for the roughly-equivalent EBC bridge on 4xx. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev