On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 21:32 -0500, Liu Po-B43644 wrote:

quoted

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Wood Scott-B07421
 Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 11:47 PM
 To: Liu Po-B43644
 Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org; galak@kernel.crashing.org;
 Fleming Andy-AFLEMING; Hu Mingkai-B21284
 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] powerpc/85xx: Add silicon device tree for
 C293
 
 On 07/30/2013 09:13:28 PM, Liu Po-B43644 wrote:
 >
 > >  -----Original Message-----
 > >  From: Wood Scott-B07421
 > >  Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:28 AM
 > >  To: Liu Po-B43644
 > >  Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org; galak@kernel.crashing.org; Fleming
 > Andy-
 > >  AFLEMING; Hu Mingkai-B21284; Liu Po-B43644
 > >  Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] powerpc/85xx: Add silicon device tree
 > for
 > >  C293
 > >
 > >  On 07/30/2013 03:49:22 AM, Po Liu wrote:
 > >  > +	crypto@80000 {
 > >  > +/include/ "qoriq-sec6.0-0.dtsi"
 > >  > +	};
 > >  > +
 > >  > +	crypto@80000 {
 > >  > +		reg = <0x80000 0x20000>;
 > >  > +		ranges = <0x0 0x80000 0x20000>;
 > >  > +
 > >  > +		jr@1000{
 > >  > +			interrupts = <45 2 0 0>;
 > >  > +		};
 > >  > +		jr@2000{
 > >  > +			interrupts = <57 2 0 0>;
 > >  > +		};
 > >  > +	};
 > >
 > >  Do these inline the way the example shows.
 > Sorry, Scott, I just remember in this way, the node can't be
 > recognized by system when run Uboot. The include can't be in the
 > crypto@80000. See the discussion in
 > http://git.am.freescale.net:8181/#/c/736/  .
 > Maybe I should re-modify the example file.
 
 git.am.freescale.net is not accessible outside of Freescale; don't
 reference it on external lists.  In any case, I don't know what
 specifically you want me to look at there.  Just put the explanation here.

Sorry, I've realize that.
The fact is that: when put the include into the crypto@xxxx, it can't compile success(make c293pcie.dtb as example). Error will show as:

ERROR (duplicate_node_names): Duplicate node name /soc@fffe00000/crypto@80000/jr@1000

OK... It seems dtc will only merge duplicates when it's not the first
time it's seen the parent node.  We're probably relying on a side-effect
of the intended behavior of accepting duplicates between the multiple
instances of the parent node.

-Scott