[PATCH 2/5] Add legacy devices to mpc8641_hpcn.dts
Wade Farnsworth
wfarnsworth at mvista.com
Thu May 17 03:59:06 EST 2007
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 11:37 -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 11:27, Wade Farnsworth wrote:
<snip>
> > + isa at f0 {
> > + device_type = "isa";
> > #interrupt-cells = <2>;
>
> Yea, thanks. BTW, will this be sufficient to now identify the
> primary controller and not doink with the legacy IO ports now?
> Or is that being handled differently somehow?
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Can you clarify this a
little?
>
> > + #size-cells = <1>;
> > + #address-cells = <2>;
> > + reg = <f000 0 0 0 0>;
> > + ranges = <1 0 01000000 0 0 00001000>;
> > + interrupt-parent = <4d0>;
>
> That 4d0 should likely be &i8259.
>
> > + 8042 at 60 {
> > + device_type = "8042";
> > + reg = <1 60 1 1 64 1>;
> > + interrupts = <1 3 c 3>;
> > + interrupt-parent = <4d0>;
> > + };
>
> Ditto.
Yes, of course. Thanks.
>
> > + rtc at 70 {
> > + device_type = "rtc";
> > + reg = <1 70 2>;
> > + };
>
> Is "rtc" a standard OF device, or are we making up a
> new thing that should be documented in booting-with-OF.txt ?
> And is the plan to somehow use this entry in the future?
It is my understanding that "rtc" is a standard OF device. Can anybody
confirm this?
This could be used in the platform-specific RTC code to get the ports
from the device tree. Currently, however, I simply use RTC_PORT(x) from
asm/mc146818rtc.h. Is it preferable to use the device tree here?
--Wade
>
> Thanks,
> jdl
>
>
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list