On 09/02/2011 01:29 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Sep 2, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 09/01/2011 10:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>>> Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use >>>> "fsl"? >>> >>> 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? > > The names for PPC cores are NOT granted by anyone.
So, it's fsl's namespace, and the vendor id should be fsl. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
