Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/10] sbc8560: Add v1 device tree source for Wind River SBC8560 board

From: Paul Gortmaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:53:09 -0500

In message: Re: [PATCH 2/10] sbc8560: Add v1 device tree source for Wind River SBC8560 board
on 01/02/2008 David Gibson wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 06:41:24PM -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > This adds a v1 device tree source for the Wind River SBC8560 board.  The
> > biggest difference between this and the MPC8560ADS reference platform
> > dts is the use of an external 16550 compatible UART instead of the CPM2.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <[email-masked]>
> 
> [snip]
> > +/dts-v1/;
> > +
> > +/ {
> > +	model = "SBC8560";
> > +	compatible = "SBC8560";
> 
> This is not the conventional format for board-level compatible
> entries, which should generally be "vendor,model" and all in lower
> case.

No problem - I can change to "sbc8560" and "wrs,sbc8560" on this board
and others.

> 
> [snip]
> > +		enet0: ethernet@24000 {
> > +			cell-index = <0>;
> > +			device_type = "network";
> > +			model = "TSEC";
> > +			compatible = "gianfar";
> 
> This looks like the old dodgy gianfar binding, and needs updating
> (mdio node will probably also need changes).

I thought I'd merged in all Kumar's updates to the gianfar nodes at that
point in time, but I'll go back and re-check.

> 
> [snip]
> > +	localbus@ff705000 {
> > +		compatible = "fsl,mpc8560-localbus";
> > +		#address-cells = <2>;
> > +		#size-cells = <1>;
> > +		reg = <0xff705000 0x100>;	// BRx, ORx, etc.
> > +
> > +		ranges = <
> > +			0x0 0x0 0xff800000 0x0800000	// 8MB boot flash
> > +			0x1 0x0 0xe4000000 0x4000000	// 64MB flash
> > +			0x3 0x0 0x20000000 0x4000000	// 64MB SDRAM
> > +			0x4 0x0 0x24000000 0x4000000	// 64MB SDRAM
> > +			0x5 0x0 0xfc000000 0x0c00000	// EPLD
> > +			0x6 0x0 0xe0000000 0x4000000	// 64MB flash
> > +			0x7 0x0 0x80000000 0x0200000	// ATM1,2
> > +		>;
> > +
> > +		epld@5,0 {
> 
> I'm not entirely convinced on this two-level representation.  I think
> the FSL people need to get together and define a binding (or set of
> bindings) for their various chipselect style external bus bridges.

I'd tried to capture what you'd outlined for the localbus node, and the
epld child seemed like a natural extension of that.  I suspect that a
lot of boards would just have the localbus node and not the extra node
that fans things out a step further.  There wasn't really any similar
precedent for that to work off of that I noticed.  I'm agreeable to
change or restructuring if Kumar recommends re-using some standard as
set by the 4xx/EBC.

Paul.

> 
> > +			compatible = "wrs,epld-localbus";
> > +			#address-cells = <2>;
> > +			#size-cells = <1>;
> > +			reg = <0x5 0x0 0xc00000>;
> > +			ranges = <
> > +				0x0 0x0 0x5 0x000000 0x1fff	// LED disp.
> > +				0x1 0x0 0x5 0x100000 0x1fff	// switches
> > +				0x2 0x0 0x5 0x200000 0x1fff	// ID reg.
> > +				0x3 0x0 0x5 0x300000 0x1fff	// status reg.
> > +				0x4 0x0 0x5 0x400000 0x1fff	// reset reg.
> > +				0x5 0x0 0x5 0x500000 0x1fff	// Wind port
> > +				0x7 0x0 0x5 0x700000 0x1fff	// UART #1
> > +				0x8 0x0 0x5 0x800000 0x1fff	// UART #2
> > +				0x9 0x0 0x5 0x900000 0x1fff	// RTC
> > +				0xb 0x0 0x5 0xb00000 0x1fff	// EEPROM
> > +			>;
> 
> -- 
> 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