On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 21:19 -0500, Jia Hongtao-B38951 wrote:

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Wood Scott-B07421
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 3:38 AM
To: Jia Hongtao-B38951
Cc: edubezval-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org; linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org;
devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org; robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org; rui.zhang-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] QorIQ/TMU: add TMU node to device tree for 
QorIQ
T104x

On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 01:33 -0500, Jia Hongtao-B38951 wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1040si-post.dtsi

quoted

b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1040si-post.dtsi
index 15ae462..bb9f792 100644

--- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1040si-post.dtsi
+++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1040si-post.dtsi

@@ -345,6 +345,7 @@
            reg        = <0xea000 0x4000>;
    };

+/include/ "qoriq-tmu-t104xsi.dtsi"
 /include/ "elo3-dma-0.dtsi"
 /include/ "elo3-dma-1.dtsi"
 /include/ "qoriq-espi-0.dtsi"

Why is this chip-specific enough to be called "t104xsi", but not 
chip-
specific enough to just go directly into t1040si-post?

T104x platform share the same calibration data.

Which t104x are you referring to that doesn't use t1040si-post.dtsi?  
Plus, given the numbering scheme it's always possible that a new t104x 
comes out that has little to do with existing t104x.

-Scott


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html