On 01/31/2012 09:55 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Jan 31, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Zhicheng Fan wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Zhicheng Fan <b32...@freeescale.com> >> --- >> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p1025si-post.dtsi | 228 +++++++++++++++++++++ >> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p1025si-pre.dtsi | 70 +++++++ >> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1025rdb.dts | 137 +++++++++++++ >> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1025rdb.dtsi | 286 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1025rdb_36b.dts | 88 ++++++++ >> 5 files changed, 809 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p1025si-post.dtsi >> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p1025si-pre.dtsi >> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1025rdb.dts >> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1025rdb.dtsi >> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1025rdb_36b.dts > > For the p1024 & p1025 I do NOT want to add new dts/fsl/p1025si*.dtsi files. > We should use the p1020 and p1021 as they are identical.
Are they sufficiently software compatible that we want to use p1020/p1021 in all the compatible strings? If yes, how was this verified? -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
