On 09/01/2011 10:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >>> The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other >>> e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be >>> consistent going forward. >> >> Why are we not using the generic names recommendation? >> >> Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use >> "fsl"? >> >> -Scott > > I have mixed feelings on this. The PowerPC,NAME has a long history & > precedence. Is there any use or value to change this?
It's inconsistent with all of our other compatibles. My understanding is that for older chips, the naming was from a managed numberspace -- is "e500" or "eXXXX" something that was explicitly granted to us by power.org, or just something we started calling our cores? -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
