| Message ID | 1314905175-4371-1-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Delegated to: | Kumar Gala |
| Headers | show |
On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other > e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be > consistent going forward. Why are we not using the generic names recommendation? Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use "fsl"? -Scott
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other > e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be > consistent going forward. Shouldn't we change the nodes for all e500 based device trees in one shot, instead of just the P4080?
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote: > On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >> The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other >> e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be >> consistent going forward. > > Why are we not using the generic names recommendation? > > Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use > "fsl"? And what about a compatible property?
On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >> The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other >> e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be >> consistent going forward. > > Why are we not using the generic names recommendation? > > Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use > "fsl"? > > -Scott I have mixed feelings on this. The PowerPC,NAME has a long history & precedence. Is there any use or value to change this? - k
On Sep 1, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: >> The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other >> e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be >> consistent going forward. > > Shouldn't we change the nodes for all e500 based device trees in one > shot, instead of just the P4080? I changed all the e500mc class to match what is used by everyone else. The e500v1/e500v2 are use the same convention at this time so figured a separate patch can handle them. - k
On 09/01/2011 10:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >>> The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other >>> e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be >>> consistent going forward. >> >> Why are we not using the generic names recommendation? >> >> Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use >> "fsl"? >> >> -Scott > > I have mixed feelings on this. The PowerPC,NAME has a long history & precedence. Is there any use or value to change this? It's inconsistent with all of our other compatibles. My understanding is that for older chips, the naming was from a managed numberspace -- is "e500" or "eXXXX" something that was explicitly granted to us by power.org, or just something we started calling our cores? -Scott
On Sep 2, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On 09/01/2011 10:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >> >> On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >> >>> On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >>>> The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other >>>> e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be >>>> consistent going forward. >>> >>> Why are we not using the generic names recommendation? >>> >>> Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use >>> "fsl"? >>> >>> -Scott >> >> I have mixed feelings on this. The PowerPC,NAME has a long history & precedence. Is there any use or value to change this? > > It's inconsistent with all of our other compatibles. My understanding > is that for older chips, the naming was from a managed numberspace -- is > "e500" or "eXXXX" something that was explicitly granted to us by > power.org, or just something we started calling our cores? > > -Scott The names for PPC cores are NOT granted by anyone. However, its pretty clear that FSLs current naming is: e500v1 e500v2 e500mc e5500 e6500 e600 e300c1 e300c2 e300c3 e300c4 e200.. - k
On 09/02/2011 01:29 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Sep 2, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 09/01/2011 10:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>>> Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use >>>> "fsl"? >>> >>> I have mixed feelings on this. The PowerPC,NAME has a long history & precedence. Is there any use or value to change this? >> >> It's inconsistent with all of our other compatibles. My understanding >> is that for older chips, the naming was from a managed numberspace -- is >> "e500" or "eXXXX" something that was explicitly granted to us by >> power.org, or just something we started calling our cores? > > The names for PPC cores are NOT granted by anyone. So, it's fsl's namespace, and the vendor id should be fsl. -Scott
On Sep 1, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other > e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be > consistent going forward. > > Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> > --- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi | 16 ++++++++-------- > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) applied - k
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi index b71051f..4984edb 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; - cpu0: PowerPC,4080@0 { + cpu0: PowerPC,e500mc@0 { device_type = "cpu"; reg = <0>; next-level-cache = <&L2_0>; @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ next-level-cache = <&cpc>; }; }; - cpu1: PowerPC,4080@1 { + cpu1: PowerPC,e500mc@1 { device_type = "cpu"; reg = <1>; next-level-cache = <&L2_1>; @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ next-level-cache = <&cpc>; }; }; - cpu2: PowerPC,4080@2 { + cpu2: PowerPC,e500mc@2 { device_type = "cpu"; reg = <2>; next-level-cache = <&L2_2>; @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ next-level-cache = <&cpc>; }; }; - cpu3: PowerPC,4080@3 { + cpu3: PowerPC,e500mc@3 { device_type = "cpu"; reg = <3>; next-level-cache = <&L2_3>; @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ next-level-cache = <&cpc>; }; }; - cpu4: PowerPC,4080@4 { + cpu4: PowerPC,e500mc@4 { device_type = "cpu"; reg = <4>; next-level-cache = <&L2_4>; @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ next-level-cache = <&cpc>; }; }; - cpu5: PowerPC,4080@5 { + cpu5: PowerPC,e500mc@5 { device_type = "cpu"; reg = <5>; next-level-cache = <&L2_5>; @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ next-level-cache = <&cpc>; }; }; - cpu6: PowerPC,4080@6 { + cpu6: PowerPC,e500mc@6 { device_type = "cpu"; reg = <6>; next-level-cache = <&L2_6>; @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ next-level-cache = <&cpc>; }; }; - cpu7: PowerPC,4080@7 { + cpu7: PowerPC,e500mc@7 { device_type = "cpu"; reg = <7>; next-level-cache = <&L2_7>;
The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be consistent going forward. Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> --- arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080si.dtsi | 16 ++++++++-------- 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)