Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] powerpc/85xx: Add silicon device tree for C293

From: Scott Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:46:54 -0500

On 07/30/2013 09:13:28 PM, Liu Po-B43644 wrote:
>=20
> >  -----Original Message-----
> >  From: Wood Scott-B07421
> >  Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:28 AM
> >  To: Liu Po-B43644
> >  Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Fleming =20
> Andy-
> >  AFLEMING; Hu Mingkai-B21284; Liu Po-B43644
> >  Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] powerpc/85xx: Add silicon device tree =20
> for
> >  C293
> >
> >  On 07/30/2013 03:49:22 AM, Po Liu wrote:
> >  > +	crypto@80000 {
> >  > +/include/ "qoriq-sec6.0-0.dtsi"
> >  > +	};
> >  > +
> >  > +	crypto@80000 {
> >  > +		reg =3D <0x80000 0x20000>;
> >  > +		ranges =3D <0x0 0x80000 0x20000>;
> >  > +
> >  > +		jr@1000{
> >  > +			interrupts =3D <45 2 0 0>;
> >  > +		};
> >  > +		jr@2000{
> >  > +			interrupts =3D <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 =20
> recognized by system when run Uboot. The include can't be in the =20
> crypto@80000. See the discussion in =20
> 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 =20
reference it on external lists.  In any case, I don't know what =20
specifically you want me to look at there.  Just put the explanation =20
here.

I do not expect the dtc output to be any different between the two =20
methods.  Could you check this (by using dtc to decompile the dtb =20
afterward) and point out exactly how the output differs between the two =20
approaches?

-Scott=