Grant Likely wrote:
quoted
+ memory {
+ device_type = "memory";
+ reg = <00000000 04000000>; // 64MB
+ };
+
+ soc5200@f0000000 {
I think we're moving to the convetion of naming these nodes
"soc@<addr>" now. (You can drop the 5200 for the node name)
Seems that this will not be painless, U-boot uses hardcoded
paths with 'soc5200', so the appropriate patch will be needed.
That may be ok for new boards but what do we do with lite5200,
where U-boot upgrade is not always an option?
m.