Subject: RE: Device Tree updates for xilinx.

From: "Stephen Neuendorffer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:58:18 -0800

Since there don't seem to be any examples of this in the tree: do you have a format preference?  For the rest of the compatible lists, I'm using something like: xlnx,ipname-version.  So for the microblaze, I'd prefer something like:

xlnx,microblaze-6.00.b

For the powerpc, either ibm,ppc405 or ibm.ppc-405 would seem to be more in character than PowerPC,405.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: David Gibson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sat 12/15/2007 11:04 PM
To: Stephen Neuendorffer
Cc: Grant Likely; Michal Simek; John Williams; [email-masked]; git
Subject: Re: Device Tree updates for xilinx.
 
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 03:41:16PM -0800, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote:

> 
> For reference, below is the device tree for a Virtex2Pro design.  Except
> for the changes noted above, this is entirely automatically generated.
> 
> Steve
> 
> / {
> 	mem_size_cells: #address-cells = <1>;
> 	#size-cells = <1>;
> 	compatible = "xlnx,virtex";
> 	model = "testing";
> 	DDR_256MB_32MX64_rank1_row13_col10_cl2_5: memory@0 {
> 		device_type = "memory";
> 		reg = < 0 memsize:10000000 >;
> 	} ;
> 	chosen {
> 		bootargs = "root=/dev/nfs
> nfsroot=172.19.221.221:/exports/xup/ydl41 ip=dhcp console=ttyUL0";
> 	} ;
> 	cpus {
> 		#address-cells = <1>;
> 		#cpus = <1>;
> 		#size-cells = <0>;
> 		PowerPC,405@0 {

I'm trying to encourage people to move to naming cpu nodes simply
"cpu@XX", with the type of core in "compatible" instead - in keeping
with the generic names convention used elsewhere.  I think this will
make your generator simpler, too.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson