On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:33 -0600, Tang Yuantian-B29983 wrote: > > > > Instead, how about a note like this near the top of the file: > > > > > > > > All references to "1.0" and "2.0" refer to the QorIQ chassis version > > > > to which the chip complies. > > > > > > > > Chassis Version Example Chips > > > > --------------- ------------- > > > > 1.0 p4080, p5020, p5040 > > > > 2.0 t4240, b4860, t1040 > > > > > > > Better, I will update. > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, this binding and the associated driver really should be called > > > > "qoriq-clock", not "corenet-clock". This would match the compatible > > > > string, and it doesn't really have much to do with corenet (which is > > > > part of the QorIQ chassis v1 and v2, but not *this* part). Do you > > > > know if the chassis v3 clock interface will be similar enough to > > share a driver? > > > > > > > Doesn't QorIQ include some low-end socs, like p1022, p1020? > > > > Yes, but those aren't "QorIQ Chassis 1.0" or "QorIQ Chassis 2.0". > > They're mpc85xx-family chips. > > > > In any case, if "qoriq" makes sense for the compatible, I don't see why > > it doesn't make sense for the driver. > > > So, "Corenet" is appropriate for driver. > If something should change, that must be compatible string.
No. Corenet is a bus interconnect, not a chip family (despite abuse of the name in other contexts in Linux/U-Boot). And the binding with qoriq has already been accepted. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
