The LS1021A contains a QUICC Engine Block, so add a node to device
tree describing that.
Signed-off-by: Esben Haabendal <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi
index e86998ca77d6..ff7be69acdd5 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi
@@ -460,6 +460,57 @@ gpio3: gpio@2330000 {
#interrupt-cells = <2>;
};
+ uqe: uqe@2400000 {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <1>;
+ device_type = "qe";
+ compatible = "fsl,qe", "simple-bus";
+ ranges = <0x0 0x0 0x2400000 0x40000>;
+ reg = <0x0 0x2400000 0x0 0x480>;
+ brg-frequency = <150000000>;
+ bus-frequency = <300000000>;
+
+ fsl,qe-num-riscs = <1>;
+ fsl,qe-num-snums = <28>;
+
+ qeic: qeic@80 {
+ compatible = "fsl,qe-ic";
+ reg = <0x80 0x80>;
+ #address-cells = <0>;
+ interrupt-controller;
+ #interrupt-cells = <1>;
+ interrupts = <GIC_SPI 109 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH
+ GIC_SPI 109 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
+ };
+
+ ucc@2000 {
+ cell-index = <1>;
+ reg = <0x2000 0x200>;
+ interrupts = <32>;
+ interrupt-parent = <&qeic>;
+ };
+
+ ucc@2200 {
+ cell-index = <3>;
+ reg = <0x2200 0x200>;
+ interrupts = <34>;
+ interrupt-parent = <&qeic>;
+ };
+
+ muram@10000 {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <1>;
+ compatible = "fsl,qe-muram", "fsl,cpm-muram";
+ ranges = <0x0 0x10000 0x6000>;
+
+ data-only@0 {
+ compatible = "fsl,qe-muram-data",
+ "fsl,cpm-muram-data";
+ reg = <0x0 0x6000>;
+ };
+ };
+ };
+
lpuart0: serial@2950000 {
compatible = "fsl,ls1021a-lpuart";
reg = <0x0 0x2950000 0x0 0x1000>;
---
base-commit: 1613e604df0cd359cf2a7fbd9be7a0bcfacfabd0
change-id: 20240530-arm-ls1021a-qe-dts-093381110793
Best regards,
--
Esben Haabendal <[email protected]>
Hi Esben,
thanks for the patch.
Would you consider current converting into YAML format?
Am Donnerstag, 30. Mai 2024, 16:22:54 CEST schrieb Esben Haabendal:
> The LS1021A contains a QUICC Engine Block, so add a node to device
> tree describing that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Esben Haabendal <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi
> index e86998ca77d6..ff7be69acdd5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi
> @@ -460,6 +460,57 @@ gpio3: gpio@2330000 {
> #interrupt-cells = <2>;
> };
>
> + uqe: uqe@2400000 {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> + device_type = "qe";
> + compatible = "fsl,qe", "simple-bus";
> + ranges = <0x0 0x0 0x2400000 0x40000>;
> + reg = <0x0 0x2400000 0x0 0x480>;
Properties please in this order:
* compatible
* reg
* #address-cells
* #size-cells
* ranges
* device_type
> + brg-frequency = <150000000>;
> + bus-frequency = <300000000>;
Mh, aren't these values depending on your actual RCW configuration?
> + fsl,qe-num-riscs = <1>;
> + fsl,qe-num-snums = <28>;
Current bindings defines:
> fsl,qe-snums: This property has to be specified as '/bits/ 8' value,
> defining the array of serial number (SNUM) values for the virtual
> threads.
So '/bits/ 8' is missing.
> + qeic: qeic@80 {
> + compatible = "fsl,qe-ic";
> + reg = <0x80 0x80>;
> + #address-cells = <0>;
> + interrupt-controller;
> + #interrupt-cells = <1>;
> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 109 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH
> + GIC_SPI 109 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> + };
> +
> + ucc@2000 {
> + cell-index = <1>;
> + reg = <0x2000 0x200>;
> + interrupts = <32>;
> + interrupt-parent = <&qeic>;
Move cell-index to last position.
> + };
> +
> + ucc@2200 {
> + cell-index = <3>;
> + reg = <0x2200 0x200>;
> + interrupts = <34>;
> + interrupt-parent = <&qeic>;
Same here.
> + };
> +
> + muram@10000 {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> + compatible = "fsl,qe-muram", "fsl,cpm-muram";
> + ranges = <0x0 0x10000 0x6000>;
Node address but no 'reg' property? I have no idea if this is okay.
Also compatible (and possibly reg) first.
Thanks and best regards.
Alexander
> + data-only@0 {
> + compatible = "fsl,qe-muram-data",
> + "fsl,cpm-muram-data";
> + reg = <0x0 0x6000>;
> + };
> + };
> + };
> +
> lpuart0: serial@2950000 {
> compatible = "fsl,ls1021a-lpuart";
> reg = <0x0 0x2950000 0x0 0x1000>;
>
> ---
> base-commit: 1613e604df0cd359cf2a7fbd9be7a0bcfacfabd0
> change-id: 20240530-arm-ls1021a-qe-dts-093381110793
>
> Best regards,
>
--
TQ-Systems GmbH | M?hlstra?e 2, Gut Delling | 82229 Seefeld, Germany
Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRB 105018
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Detlef Schneider, R?diger Stahl, Stefan Schneider
http://www.tq-group.com/
Alexander Stein <[email protected]> writes:
> Would you consider current converting into YAML format?
You mean converting Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/fsl/qe.txt and
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/fsl/qe/*.txt into YAML?
I can consider that. I haven't done something like that before, but I
assume it might include some additional work other than trivially format
conversion. So I would prefer to do that after this patch, if that is
ok.
> Am Donnerstag, 30. Mai 2024, 16:22:54 CEST schrieb Esben Haabendal:
>> The LS1021A contains a QUICC Engine Block, so add a node to device
>> tree describing that.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Esben Haabendal <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi
>> index e86998ca77d6..ff7be69acdd5 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi
>> @@ -460,6 +460,57 @@ gpio3: gpio@2330000 {
>> #interrupt-cells = <2>;
>> };
>>
>> + uqe: uqe@2400000 {
>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>> + #size-cells = <1>;
>> + device_type = "qe";
>> + compatible = "fsl,qe", "simple-bus";
>> + ranges = <0x0 0x0 0x2400000 0x40000>;
>> + reg = <0x0 0x2400000 0x0 0x480>;
>
> Properties please in this order:
> * compatible
> * reg
> * #address-cells
> * #size-cells
> * ranges
> * device_type
Fixing.
>> + brg-frequency = <150000000>;
>> + bus-frequency = <300000000>;
>
> Mh, aren't these values depending on your actual RCW configuration?
Yes, you are right. The QE bus-frequency comes from platform_clk which
is controlled by various bits in RCW and sys_ref_clk.
So I guess it should be possible to derive bus-frequency from sysclk
clock-frequency attribute and RCW. But fsl,qe bus-frequency is a
required property...
Max bus-frequency for LS1021A is 300 MHz. But it should be possible to
set it lower, although I suspect that many/most/everyone is running it
at 300 MHz.
>> + fsl,qe-num-riscs = <1>;
>> + fsl,qe-num-snums = <28>;
>
> Current bindings defines:
>> fsl,qe-snums: This property has to be specified as '/bits/ 8' value,
>> defining the array of serial number (SNUM) values for the virtual
>> threads.
>
> So '/bits/ 8' is missing.
Ok, so you want me to add an array for fs,qe-snums attribute?
None of the existing fsl,qe devices has a fsl,qe-snums.
And qe_snums_init() has a fallback, so I don't think it is correct to
specify fsl,qe-snums to be a required property in the bindings. It
should be listed as optional.
>> + qeic: qeic@80 {
>> + compatible = "fsl,qe-ic";
>> + reg = <0x80 0x80>;
>> + #address-cells = <0>;
>> + interrupt-controller;
>> + #interrupt-cells = <1>;
>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 109 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH
>> + GIC_SPI 109 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + ucc@2000 {
>> + cell-index = <1>;
>> + reg = <0x2000 0x200>;
>> + interrupts = <32>;
>> + interrupt-parent = <&qeic>;
>
> Move cell-index to last position.
Done.
>> + };
>> +
>> + ucc@2200 {
>> + cell-index = <3>;
>> + reg = <0x2200 0x200>;
>> + interrupts = <34>;
>> + interrupt-parent = <&qeic>;
>
> Same here.
Done.
>> + };
>> +
>> + muram@10000 {
>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>> + #size-cells = <1>;
>> + compatible = "fsl,qe-muram", "fsl,cpm-muram";
>> + ranges = <0x0 0x10000 0x6000>;
>
> Node address but no 'reg' property? I have no idea if this is okay.
> Also compatible (and possibly reg) first.
It is done in the same way for all existing fsl,qe-muram devices. So if
it is not okay, a tree-wide fixup would be in place.
/Esben
Hi Esben,
Am Freitag, 31. Mai 2024, 14:20:02 CEST schrieb Esben Haabendal:
> Alexander Stein <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Would you consider current converting into YAML format?
>
> You mean converting Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/fsl/qe.txt and
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/fsl/qe/*.txt into YAML?
>
> I can consider that. I haven't done something like that before, but I
> assume it might include some additional work other than trivially format
> conversion. So I would prefer to do that after this patch, if that is
> ok.
Getting the constraints right is probably not that easy. But having
verifiable bindinds helps getting the .dtsi right.
> > Am Donnerstag, 30. Mai 2024, 16:22:54 CEST schrieb Esben Haabendal:
> >> The LS1021A contains a QUICC Engine Block, so add a node to device
> >> tree describing that.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Esben Haabendal <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi
> >> index e86998ca77d6..ff7be69acdd5 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/ls/ls1021a.dtsi
> >> @@ -460,6 +460,57 @@ gpio3: gpio@2330000 {
> >> #interrupt-cells = <2>;
> >> };
> >>
> >> + uqe: uqe@2400000 {
> >> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >> + #size-cells = <1>;
> >> + device_type = "qe";
> >> + compatible = "fsl,qe", "simple-bus";
> >> + ranges = <0x0 0x0 0x2400000 0x40000>;
> >> + reg = <0x0 0x2400000 0x0 0x480>;
> >
> > Properties please in this order:
> > * compatible
> > * reg
> > * #address-cells
> > * #size-cells
> > * ranges
> > * device_type
>
> Fixing.
>
> >> + brg-frequency = <150000000>;
> >> + bus-frequency = <300000000>;
> >
> > Mh, aren't these values depending on your actual RCW configuration?
>
> Yes, you are right. The QE bus-frequency comes from platform_clk which
> is controlled by various bits in RCW and sys_ref_clk.
>
> So I guess it should be possible to derive bus-frequency from sysclk
> clock-frequency attribute and RCW. But fsl,qe bus-frequency is a
> required property...
>
> Max bus-frequency for LS1021A is 300 MHz. But it should be possible to
> set it lower, although I suspect that many/most/everyone is running it
> at 300 MHz.
Thanks for confirmation. I'll let DT maintainer decide how to deal with this.
> >> + fsl,qe-num-riscs = <1>;
> >> + fsl,qe-num-snums = <28>;
> >
> > Current bindings defines:
> >> fsl,qe-snums: This property has to be specified as '/bits/ 8' value,
> >> defining the array of serial number (SNUM) values for the virtual
> >> threads.
> >
> > So '/bits/ 8' is missing.
>
> Ok, so you want me to add an array for fs,qe-snums attribute?
> None of the existing fsl,qe devices has a fsl,qe-snums.
> And qe_snums_init() has a fallback, so I don't think it is correct to
> specify fsl,qe-snums to be a required property in the bindings. It
> should be listed as optional.
fsl,qe-num-snums is a deprecated property, so IMHO the replacement
fsl,qe-snums should be used instead for new device tree entries.
qe_snums_init() supporting 'fsl,qe-num-snums' is just to support
"legacy bindings" as stated in the comment.
>
> >> + qeic: qeic@80 {
> >> + compatible = "fsl,qe-ic";
> >> + reg = <0x80 0x80>;
> >> + #address-cells = <0>;
> >> + interrupt-controller;
> >> + #interrupt-cells = <1>;
> >> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 109 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH
> >> + GIC_SPI 109 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> >> + };
> >> +
> >> + ucc@2000 {
> >> + cell-index = <1>;
> >> + reg = <0x2000 0x200>;
> >> + interrupts = <32>;
> >> + interrupt-parent = <&qeic>;
> >
> > Move cell-index to last position.
>
> Done.
>
> >> + };
> >> +
> >> + ucc@2200 {
> >> + cell-index = <3>;
> >> + reg = <0x2200 0x200>;
> >> + interrupts = <34>;
> >> + interrupt-parent = <&qeic>;
> >
> > Same here.
>
> Done.
>
> >> + };
> >> +
> >> + muram@10000 {
> >> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >> + #size-cells = <1>;
> >> + compatible = "fsl,qe-muram", "fsl,cpm-muram";
> >> + ranges = <0x0 0x10000 0x6000>;
> >
> > Node address but no 'reg' property? I have no idea if this is okay.
> > Also compatible (and possibly reg) first.
>
> It is done in the same way for all existing fsl,qe-muram devices. So if
> it is not okay, a tree-wide fixup would be in place.
I can't finally say if this is okay, but at least the compatible shall be
listed first.
Thanks and best regards,
Alexander
--
TQ-Systems GmbH | M?hlstra?e 2, Gut Delling | 82229 Seefeld, Germany
Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRB 105018
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Detlef Schneider, R?diger Stahl, Stefan Schneider
http://www.tq-group.com/
Alexander Stein <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi Esben,
>
> Am Freitag, 31. Mai 2024, 14:20:02 CEST schrieb Esben Haabendal:
>> Alexander Stein <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> + brg-frequency = <150000000>;
>> >> + bus-frequency = <300000000>;
>> >
>> > Mh, aren't these values depending on your actual RCW configuration?
>>
>> Yes, you are right. The QE bus-frequency comes from platform_clk which
>> is controlled by various bits in RCW and sys_ref_clk.
>>
>> So I guess it should be possible to derive bus-frequency from sysclk
>> clock-frequency attribute and RCW. But fsl,qe bus-frequency is a
>> required property...
>>
>> Max bus-frequency for LS1021A is 300 MHz. But it should be possible to
>> set it lower, although I suspect that many/most/everyone is running it
>> at 300 MHz.
>
> Thanks for confirmation. I'll let DT maintainer decide how to deal with this.
For reference.
The existing DTS with fsl,qe have the following bus-frequency property values:
arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1043a.dtsi: bus-frequency = <200000000>
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/mpc8568si-post.dtsi: bus-frequency = <396000000>
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/mpc8569si-post.dtsi: bus-frequency = <0>
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p1021si-post.dtsi: missing!
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1024si-post.dtsi: bus-frequency = <0>
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1040si-post.dtsi: missing!
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/kmeter1.dts: bus-frequency = <0>
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc836x_rdk.dts: bus-frequency = <0>
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc832x_rdb.dts: bus-frequency = <198000000>
The 3 non-zero values are most likely also not guaranteed by SoC design
to always be the right values. But I haven't checked.
>> >> + fsl,qe-num-riscs = <1>;
>> >> + fsl,qe-num-snums = <28>;
>> >
>> > Current bindings defines:
>> >> fsl,qe-snums: This property has to be specified as '/bits/ 8' value,
>> >> defining the array of serial number (SNUM) values for the virtual
>> >> threads.
>> >
>> > So '/bits/ 8' is missing.
>>
>> Ok, so you want me to add an array for fs,qe-snums attribute?
>> None of the existing fsl,qe devices has a fsl,qe-snums.
>> And qe_snums_init() has a fallback, so I don't think it is correct to
>> specify fsl,qe-snums to be a required property in the bindings. It
>> should be listed as optional.
>
> fsl,qe-num-snums is a deprecated property, so IMHO the replacement
> fsl,qe-snums should be used instead for new device tree entries.
> qe_snums_init() supporting 'fsl,qe-num-snums' is just to support
> "legacy bindings" as stated in the comment.
Figuring out the correct array values for fsl,qe-snums for ls1021a is
not so easy. It is not so clear from the reference manual, what it
should be. And the default array used for fsl,qe-num-snums = <28> does
not look right in any way, but seems to work.
It would not feel right to just copy those values and put into DTS, as
it would imply that the values are truly a correct description for the
LS1021A hardware.
>>
>> >> + };
>> >> +
>> >> + muram@10000 {
>> >> + #address-cells = <1>;
>> >> + #size-cells = <1>;
>> >> + compatible = "fsl,qe-muram", "fsl,cpm-muram";
>> >> + ranges = <0x0 0x10000 0x6000>;
>> >
>> > Node address but no 'reg' property? I have no idea if this is okay.
>> > Also compatible (and possibly reg) first.
>>
>> It is done in the same way for all existing fsl,qe-muram devices. So if
>> it is not okay, a tree-wide fixup would be in place.
>
> I can't finally say if this is okay, but at least the compatible shall be
> listed first.
Done.
/Esben
Hi Esben,
Am Freitag, 31. Mai 2024, 16:40:29 CEST schrieb Esben Haabendal:
> Alexander Stein <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Hi Esben,
> >
> > Am Freitag, 31. Mai 2024, 14:20:02 CEST schrieb Esben Haabendal:
> >> Alexander Stein <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >> + brg-frequency = <150000000>;
> >> >> + bus-frequency = <300000000>;
> >> >
> >> > Mh, aren't these values depending on your actual RCW configuration?
> >>
> >> Yes, you are right. The QE bus-frequency comes from platform_clk which
> >> is controlled by various bits in RCW and sys_ref_clk.
> >>
> >> So I guess it should be possible to derive bus-frequency from sysclk
> >> clock-frequency attribute and RCW. But fsl,qe bus-frequency is a
> >> required property...
> >>
> >> Max bus-frequency for LS1021A is 300 MHz. But it should be possible to
> >> set it lower, although I suspect that many/most/everyone is running it
> >> at 300 MHz.
> >
> > Thanks for confirmation. I'll let DT maintainer decide how to deal with this.
>
> For reference.
>
> The existing DTS with fsl,qe have the following bus-frequency property values:
>
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1043a.dtsi: bus-frequency = <200000000>
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/mpc8568si-post.dtsi: bus-frequency = <396000000>
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/mpc8569si-post.dtsi: bus-frequency = <0>
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p1021si-post.dtsi: missing!
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1024si-post.dtsi: bus-frequency = <0>
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1040si-post.dtsi: missing!
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/kmeter1.dts: bus-frequency = <0>
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc836x_rdk.dts: bus-frequency = <0>
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc832x_rdb.dts: bus-frequency = <198000000>
>
> The 3 non-zero values are most likely also not guaranteed by SoC design
> to always be the right values. But I haven't checked.
PowerPC might be completely different. Apparently that's the way it is
done until now.
> >> >> + fsl,qe-num-riscs = <1>;
> >> >> + fsl,qe-num-snums = <28>;
> >> >
> >> > Current bindings defines:
> >> >> fsl,qe-snums: This property has to be specified as '/bits/ 8' value,
> >> >> defining the array of serial number (SNUM) values for the virtual
> >> >> threads.
> >> >
> >> > So '/bits/ 8' is missing.
> >>
> >> Ok, so you want me to add an array for fs,qe-snums attribute?
> >> None of the existing fsl,qe devices has a fsl,qe-snums.
> >> And qe_snums_init() has a fallback, so I don't think it is correct to
> >> specify fsl,qe-snums to be a required property in the bindings. It
> >> should be listed as optional.
> >
> > fsl,qe-num-snums is a deprecated property, so IMHO the replacement
> > fsl,qe-snums should be used instead for new device tree entries.
> > qe_snums_init() supporting 'fsl,qe-num-snums' is just to support
> > "legacy bindings" as stated in the comment.
>
> Figuring out the correct array values for fsl,qe-snums for ls1021a is
> not so easy. It is not so clear from the reference manual, what it
> should be. And the default array used for fsl,qe-num-snums = <28> does
> not look right in any way, but seems to work.
>
> It would not feel right to just copy those values and put into DTS, as
> it would imply that the values are truly a correct description for the
> LS1021A hardware.
Maybe copy the currently hardcoded values and add a REVISIT comment or
similar describing these are copied, apparently working, but unverified.
Best regards,
Alexander
> >>
> >> >> + };
> >> >> +
> >> >> + muram@10000 {
> >> >> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >> >> + #size-cells = <1>;
> >> >> + compatible = "fsl,qe-muram", "fsl,cpm-muram";
> >> >> + ranges = <0x0 0x10000 0x6000>;
> >> >
> >> > Node address but no 'reg' property? I have no idea if this is okay.
> >> > Also compatible (and possibly reg) first.
> >>
> >> It is done in the same way for all existing fsl,qe-muram devices. So if
> >> it is not okay, a tree-wide fixup would be in place.
> >
> > I can't finally say if this is okay, but at least the compatible shall be
> > listed first.
>
> Done.
>
> /Esben
>
--
TQ-Systems GmbH | M?hlstra?e 2, Gut Delling | 82229 Seefeld, Germany
Amtsgericht M?nchen, HRB 105018
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Detlef Schneider, R?diger Stahl, Stefan Schneider
http://www.tq-group.com/