On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:36 PM, David Gibson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 05:14:56AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote: >> 2010/3/11 Németh Márton <[email protected]>: > [snip] >> > + >> > + cpus { >> > + #address-cells = <1>; >> > + #size-cells = <0>; >> > + >> > + c...@0 { >> > + device_type = "cpu"; >> > + compatible = "PowerPC,5554"; >> >> I'd rather see the same convention used here as for all the other >> compatible values in this file. ie: >> >> compatible = "fsl,mpc5554-e200z6", "fsl,powerpc-e200z6"; >> >> Dave, what do you think? > > Well, you could add those too, but "PowerPC,5554" should probably > remain. > > The historical background here is that in the original OF spec, driver > matching was done on node name, and only then on compatible. > Essentially the node name was treated as an implicit first entry in > the compatible list. The the generic names convention came along, and > instead name became a human readable generic type for the device > ("ethernet", "i2c", etc..). > > That convention has been widely used since long before flat trees > existed, but for some reason it was never really used for cpu nodes; > they remained as "PowerPC,XXXX" or whatever. Because the varying > names of cpu nodes was sometimes awkward to deal with in bootloaders, > we decided it would be sensible to apply the generic names convention > here too, so "c...@x". But then, the previous node name, which was > treated as being prepended to compatible, should now explicitly be put > into compatible.
In this particular case, we're talking about a part that has never previously been described in a device tree. So, since this is something entirely new, what is the value in preserving the PowerPC,XXXX style when there isn't any code that will be relying on it? g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
