Thread (19 messages) flat view 19 messages, 3 authors, 2013-03-12

Re: [PATCH 5/8] powerpc/fsl-booke: Add initial silicon device tree for

From: Kumar Gala <hidden>
Date: 2013-03-07 17:10:02

On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 03/05/2013 05:15:57 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
quoted
Enable a baseline T4240 SoC to boot.  There are several things =
missing
quoted
from the device trees for T4240:
* Thread support on e6500
=20
Why did threads get removed from the device tree?  It's supposed to =
describe hardware, not what Linux currently supports.

will fix, was concerned if we'd be able to boot if they exited
=20
quoted
* Proper PAMU topology information
* DPAA related nodes (Qman, Bman, Fman, Rman, DCE)
* Prefetch Manager
* Thermal monitor unit
* Interlaken
=20
The dts should be marked preliminary somehow -- we really should get =
out of the habit of letting device nodes trickle in as drivers get =
added.

agreed but forward progress always gets in the way
=20
quoted
+/* controller at 0x240000 */
+&pci0 {
+	compatible =3D "fsl,t4240-pcie", "fsl,qoriq-pcie-v3.0";
=20
We have a version register -- do we really need to keep sticking the =
version number in the compatible?  Note that we've had device trees that =
specified the version incorrectly in the past.
=20
quoted
+	device_type =3D "pci";
+	#size-cells =3D <2>;
+	#address-cells =3D <3>;
+	bus-range =3D <0x0 0xff>;
+	clock-frequency =3D <33333333>;
=20
This clock-frequency is not correct (I doubt it's needed at all).
I can zero the field, but its spec'd by pci binding
=20
quoted
+		PowerPC,e6500@1 {
+			device_type =3D "cpu";
+			reg =3D <2>;
+			next-level-cache =3D <&L2_1>;
+		};
+		PowerPC,e6500@2 {
+			device_type =3D "cpu";
+			reg =3D <4>;
+			next-level-cache =3D <&L2_1>;
+		};
+		PowerPC,e6500@3 {
+			device_type =3D "cpu";
+			reg =3D <6>;
+			next-level-cache =3D <&L2_1>;
+		};
+
+		PowerPC,e6500@4 {
+			device_type =3D "cpu";
+			reg =3D <8>;
+			next-level-cache =3D <&L2_2>;
+		};
=20
Inconsistent whitespace.
will kill the whitespace.
As usual, the pre/post split is unnecessary.  Everything in it can go =
in post.
=20
-Scott
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help