Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753344AbXFNFxR (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:53:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751635AbXFNFxF (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:53:05 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:59985 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750930AbXFNFxE (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:53:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <59453d80f2f111b72e8f24e7b489c23e@kernel.crashing.org> References: <11816389393593-git-send-email-wei.zhang@freescale.com> <1181638939310-git-send-email-wei.zhang@freescale.com> <39c7d60cebf03badd106d7f75a08f449@kernel.crashing.org> <46B96294322F7D458F9648B60E15112C526DD9@zch01exm26.fsl.freescale.net> <59453d80f2f111b72e8f24e7b489c23e@kernel.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: "Zhang Wei-r63237" , , , , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 To: Segher Boessenkool X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1601 Lines: 40 >> 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/