Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] fsl_soc.c cleanup

From: Scott Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:24:37 -0500

Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> Any particular reason to special-case it, when we already need code to 
>> do it the other way for every other fsl soc?
> 
> If you suggest a sane way of getting the value let me know.  The mpc8xx 
> doesn't appear to have what I would call 'soc' level registers like 
> 83xx/85xx/86xx does.  How do you propose we determine the immrbase?

What exactly do you mean by "soc"-level registers?

I propose we do it by defining the first (and ideally only, but that's 
another argument) entry in ranges as the immr, and getting rid of /soc/reg.

>> And why is 82xx-pq2 special?  Wouldn't you need this on 83xx, 85xx, 
>> and 86xx as well?
> 
> The range will cover the whole immr space on 83xx/85xx/86xx.

And why can't it do that on 82xx?

> 82xx-pq2 is special in that its soc regs are in the middle of the immr 
> address map.

The /soc node is misnamed; it should really be /immr.  Why do we need 
these particular registers to be in /soc/reg rather than a subnode?

-Scott