[PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts

The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other
e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc.  Use the core name to be
consistent going forward.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <redacted>
---
 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi |   16 ++++++++--------
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi
index b71051f..4984edb 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi
+++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi

@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@
 		#address-cells = <1>;
 		#size-cells = <0>;
 
-		cpu0: PowerPC,4080@0 {
+		cpu0: PowerPC,e500mc@0 {
 			device_type = "cpu";
 			reg = <0>;
 			next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;

@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@
 				next-level-cache = <&cpc>;
 			};
 		};
-		cpu1: PowerPC,4080@1 {
+		cpu1: PowerPC,e500mc@1 {
 			device_type = "cpu";
 			reg = <1>;
 			next-level-cache = <&L2_1>;

@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@
 				next-level-cache = <&cpc>;
 			};
 		};
-		cpu2: PowerPC,4080@2 {
+		cpu2: PowerPC,e500mc@2 {
 			device_type = "cpu";
 			reg = <2>;
 			next-level-cache = <&L2_2>;

@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@
 				next-level-cache = <&cpc>;
 			};
 		};
-		cpu3: PowerPC,4080@3 {
+		cpu3: PowerPC,e500mc@3 {
 			device_type = "cpu";
 			reg = <3>;
 			next-level-cache = <&L2_3>;

@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@
 				next-level-cache = <&cpc>;
 			};
 		};
-		cpu4: PowerPC,4080@4 {
+		cpu4: PowerPC,e500mc@4 {
 			device_type = "cpu";
 			reg = <4>;
 			next-level-cache = <&L2_4>;

@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@
 				next-level-cache = <&cpc>;
 			};
 		};
-		cpu5: PowerPC,4080@5 {
+		cpu5: PowerPC,e500mc@5 {
 			device_type = "cpu";
 			reg = <5>;
 			next-level-cache = <&L2_5>;

@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@
 				next-level-cache = <&cpc>;
 			};
 		};
-		cpu6: PowerPC,4080@6 {
+		cpu6: PowerPC,e500mc@6 {
 			device_type = "cpu";
 			reg = <6>;
 			next-level-cache = <&L2_6>;

@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@
 				next-level-cache = <&cpc>;
 			};
 		};
-		cpu7: PowerPC,4080@7 {
+		cpu7: PowerPC,e500mc@7 {
 			device_type = "cpu";
 			reg = <7>;
 			next-level-cache = <&L2_7>;

-- 
1.7.3.4

On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:

The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other
e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc.  Use the core name to be
consistent going forward.

Why are we not using the generic names recommendation?

Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use
"fsl"?

-Scott

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood [off-list ref] wrote:

On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:

quoted

The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other
e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. =A0Use the core name to be
consistent going forward.

Why are we not using the generic names recommendation?

Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use
"fsl"?

And what about a compatible property?

--=20
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale=

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Kumar Gala [off-list ref] wrot=
e:

The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other
e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. =A0Use the core name to be
consistent going forward.

Shouldn't we change the nodes for all e500 based device trees in one
shot, instead of just the P4080?

--=20
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale=

On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote:

On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:

quoted

The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other
e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc.  Use the core name to be
consistent going forward.

=20
Why are we not using the generic names recommendation?
=20
Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we =

use

"fsl"?
=20
-Scott

I have mixed feelings on this.  The PowerPC,NAME has a long history & =
precedence.  Is there any use or value to change this?

- k=

On Sep 1, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Kumar Gala [off-list ref] =

wrote:

quoted

The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other
e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc.  Use the core name to be
consistent going forward.

=20
Shouldn't we change the nodes for all e500 based device trees in one
shot, instead of just the P4080?

I changed all the e500mc class to match what is used by everyone else.  =
The e500v1/e500v2 are use the same convention at this time so figured a =
separate patch can handle them.

- k=

On 09/01/2011 10:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:

On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:

quoted

The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other
e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc.  Use the core name to be
consistent going forward.

Why are we not using the generic names recommendation?

Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use
"fsl"?

-Scott

I have mixed feelings on this.  The PowerPC,NAME has a long history & precedence.  Is there any use or value to change this?

It's inconsistent with all of our other compatibles.  My understanding
is that for older chips, the naming was from a managed numberspace -- is
"e500" or "eXXXX" something that was explicitly granted to us by
power.org, or just something we started calling our cores?

-Scott

On Sep 2, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Scott Wood wrote:

On 09/01/2011 10:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:

quoted

=20
On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
=20

quoted

On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:

quoted

The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the =

other

quoted

quoted

quoted

e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc.  Use the core name to be
consistent going forward.

=20
Why are we not using the generic names recommendation?
=20
Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we =

use

quoted

quoted

"fsl"?
=20
-Scott

=20
I have mixed feelings on this.  The PowerPC,NAME has a long history & =

precedence.  Is there any use or value to change this?

=20
It's inconsistent with all of our other compatibles.  My understanding
is that for older chips, the naming was from a managed numberspace -- =

is

"e500" or "eXXXX" something that was explicitly granted to us by
power.org, or just something we started calling our cores?
=20
-Scott

The names for PPC cores are NOT granted by anyone.  However, its pretty =
clear that FSLs current naming is:

e500v1
e500v2
e500mc
e5500
e6500

e600
e300c1
e300c2
e300c3
e300c4

e200..

- k=

On 09/02/2011 01:29 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:

On Sep 2, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

On 09/01/2011 10:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:

quoted

On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use
"fsl"?

I have mixed feelings on this.  The PowerPC,NAME has a long history & precedence.  Is there any use or value to change this?

It's inconsistent with all of our other compatibles.  My understanding
is that for older chips, the naming was from a managed numberspace -- is
"e500" or "eXXXX" something that was explicitly granted to us by
power.org, or just something we started calling our cores?

The names for PPC cores are NOT granted by anyone.

So, it's fsl's namespace, and the vendor id should be fsl.

-Scott

On Sep 1, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:

The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other
e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc.  Use the core name to be
consistent going forward.

Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <redacted>
---
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi |   16 ++++++++--------
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

applied

- k