RE: [PATCH 10/11] Add MPC8360EMDS board support

-----Original Message-----
From: Vitaly Bordug [mailto:vbordug@ru.mvista.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 8:56 PM
To: Li Yang-r58472
Cc: Paul Mackerras; linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] Add MPC8360EMDS board support
=20
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:02:56 +0800
"Li Yang-r58472" [off-list ref] wrote:
=20

quoted

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Vitaly Bordug [mailto:vbordug@ru.mvista.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 7:56 PM
To: Paul Mackerras
Cc: Li Yang-r58472; linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] Add MPC8360EMDS board support

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:39:11 +1000
Paul Mackerras [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Li Yang writes:

quoted

+#define BCSR_PHYS_ADDR		((uint)0xf8000000)
+#define BCSR_SIZE		((uint)(32 * 1024))

This sort of thing should really be in the device tree.

Just a suggestion, but for the similar aim in pq2 I have those

stuff

quoted

in memory node :

quoted

+memory {
+               device_type =3D "memory";
+               linux,phandle =3D <300>;
+               reg =3D <00000000 4000000 f4500000 00000020>;
+       };
the second pair is about bcsr and its size.

Just in case this may help (and wondering if I'm not violating

something :) )

Well, this can make it work.  But I would prefer to use a new node
because the BCSR is by no means a memory type of device.  I have

made my

quoted

change to use node like this:

        bcsr@f8000000 {
                device_type =3D "board-control";
                reg =3D <f8000000 8000>;
        };

=20
I though about that approach, but saw somewhere a reference that we

should not summon

new node types without utter necessity, and utilized memory because

bcsr is

memory-mapped stuff. I can hardly imagine bcsr as a device (which

would require

respective spec inclusion btw).

Well I didn't see such a guideline.  However BCSR is truly a device like
any other peripherals on board.  Usually it is an FPGA on local bus to
control the board.

=20
hence let's open a discussion what others think about that. The

problem seems common

(and for some boards
is called somewhat else apparently), but at this point we should come

to some

conclusion, document it, and use it.

Agreed.  As we are adding more devices to the device tree, we should
also have a guideline clearly stated for adding new nodes. =20

I'm adding MURAM as a new node under QE bus.  Please comment.
                muram@10000 {
                        device_type =3D "memory";
                        ranges =3D <0 00010000 0000c000>;

                        data-only@0{
                                reg =3D <0 c000>;
                        };
                };

- Leo