From: Kumar Gala <[email protected]>
All other compatibles that are uniquely identifying the processor use
a prefix of the form fsl,mpc85...'. We add support for it so we
can deprecate the older 'fsl,85...' that was improperly used here.
Additionally added mpc8536 & mpc8560 to the compatible lists.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Doug Thompson <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Dave Jiang <[email protected]>
---
This patch is based on Nate's 8572 patch.
drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c | 74 ++++++++++++++++++------------------------
1 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c
index 63bdc47..184799a 100644
--- a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c
+++ b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c
@@ -630,27 +630,22 @@ static int mpc85xx_l2_err_remove(struct of_device *op)
}
static struct of_device_id mpc85xx_l2_err_of_match[] = {
- {
- .compatible = "fsl,8540-l2-cache-controller",
- },
- {
- .compatible = "fsl,8541-l2-cache-controller",
- },
- {
- .compatible = "fsl,8544-l2-cache-controller",
- },
- {
- .compatible = "fsl,8548-l2-cache-controller",
- },
- {
- .compatible = "fsl,8555-l2-cache-controller",
- },
- {
- .compatible = "fsl,8568-l2-cache-controller",
- },
- {
- .compatible = "fsl,mpc8572-l2-cache-controller",
- },
+/* deprecate the fsl,85.. forms in the future, 2.6.30? */
+ { .compatible = "fsl,8540-l2-cache-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,8541-l2-cache-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,8544-l2-cache-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,8548-l2-cache-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,8555-l2-cache-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,8568-l2-cache-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8536-l2-cache-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8540-l2-cache-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8541-l2-cache-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8544-l2-cache-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8548-l2-cache-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8555-l2-cache-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8560-l2-cache-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8568-l2-cache-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8572-l2-cache-controller", },
{},
};
@@ -967,27 +962,22 @@ static int mpc85xx_mc_err_remove(struct of_device *op)
}
static struct of_device_id mpc85xx_mc_err_of_match[] = {
- {
- .compatible = "fsl,8540-memory-controller",
- },
- {
- .compatible = "fsl,8541-memory-controller",
- },
- {
- .compatible = "fsl,8544-memory-controller",
- },
- {
- .compatible = "fsl,8548-memory-controller",
- },
- {
- .compatible = "fsl,8555-memory-controller",
- },
- {
- .compatible = "fsl,8568-memory-controller",
- },
- {
- .compatible = "fsl,mpc8572-memory-controller",
- },
+/* deprecate the fsl,85.. forms in the future, 2.6.30? */
+ { .compatible = "fsl,8540-memory-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,8541-memory-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,8544-memory-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,8548-memory-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,8555-memory-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,8568-memory-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8536-memory-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8540-memory-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8541-memory-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8544-memory-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8548-memory-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8555-memory-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8560-memory-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8568-memory-controller", },
+ { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8572-memory-controller", },
{},
};
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:18:03 -0700
[email protected] wrote:
> From: Kumar Gala <[email protected]>
>
> All other compatibles that are uniquely identifying the processor use
> a prefix of the form fsl,mpc85...'. We add support for it so we
> can deprecate the older 'fsl,85...' that was improperly used here.
>
> Additionally added mpc8536 & mpc8560 to the compatible lists.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Doug Thompson <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Dave Jiang <[email protected]>
I don't understand how this patch changes kernel behaviour (this is due
to my ignorance and your crappy changelog). So I randomly queued it
for 2.6.29. If that was wrong, please let me know.
>
> This patch is based on Nate's 8572 patch.
Who's Nate? He should at least get a cc. Perhaps a signed-off-by: too?