[PATCH 49/61] 8xx: Update device trees.

[Segher Boessenkool]

>>> +				fsl,cpm-brg = <1>;
>>> +				fsl,cpm-command = <0090>;
>>
>> Are these two documented?  Your patch queue is too
>> long for me to check for myself.
>>
> In fact, there were different approaches to describe CPM, and I am  
> sure this is not the end.
> These aren't documented, and I think we do not need that so far: I  
> am pretty sure this will change
> to something more comfortable as new similar ports will follow-up.  
> Meanwhile, values are self-description
> for anybody familiar with this SoC.

Even when it is a work in progress still, it would be a good
idea to start documenting the device binding.

>>> -	soc885 at ff000000 {
>>> +	bcsr at ff080000 {
>>
>> Maybe use a more generic name, I have no idea what a
>> "BCSR" is.
>>
> IIRC, QE stuff, when first introduced, had bcsr bindings, that were  
> discussed and agreed here.

Sure, that's not the point.

Since you are using generic names, the only use for the "name"
of a node is for a human reader to understand your tree.  Maybe
everyone using this specific SoC knows what a BCSR is; or maybe
there is a more friendly name you could use.


Segher