On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> 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?
They are the identical silicon just in different physical packages. It was verified by me asking the FSL marketing team. I'll work up a patch to add some comments to the p1020 & p1021si dts files about being the same for p1024/p1025. - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
