Messages in this thread | | | From | Kumar Gala <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] Add the explanation and sample of RapidIO DTS sector to the document of booting-without-of.txt file. | Date | Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:53:11 -0500 |
| |
>> Some silicons of Freescale processor are the same RapidIO controller, >> such as mpc8540/mpc8560 are the same (v0.0), mpc8548/mpc8641 are the >> same (v1.0). For v1.0 RapidIO controller, should we use mpc8548 or >> mpc8641? Those will make people confused. > > Not at all. On an 8641 it could be > > compatible = "fsl,mpc8641-rapidio" "fsl,mpc8548-rapidio"; > > which states "this is the 8641 thing and it is compatible > to the 8548 thing". Perfectly clear.
The concern is this isn't just compatible = "..8641.." "..8548.." but something like:
"..8641.." "..8641d.." "..8548.." "..8548e.." "..8543.." "..8543e.." "..8572.." "..8572e.." "..8567.." "..8567e.." "..8568.." "..8568e.."
>> Using IP Block Revision is a >> clear choice. > > I don't think so. For one thing, it describes a version of > a cell design, not a version of an actual device. For another > thing, if I hear "8641" I know what you're talking about (sort > of, anyway), but I draw a blank stare if you say "v1.0". I'm > sure I'm not the only one. Concrete names are good.
While I agree concrete names are good, we put these 'blocks' in so many devices that using the device to match on is pointless.
I'm all for making up a name like 'Grande', 'Del', 'Janeiro'. This is effective what we did with gianfar. The name gets picked up pretty quickly by people.
- k - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |