[PATCH 1/3] fsl_soc.c cleanup
scottwood at freescale.com
Wed Sep 12 02:24:37 EST 2007
Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> Any particular reason to special-case it, when we already need code to
>> do it the other way for every other fsl soc?
> If you suggest a sane way of getting the value let me know. The mpc8xx
> doesn't appear to have what I would call 'soc' level registers like
> 83xx/85xx/86xx does. How do you propose we determine the immrbase?
What exactly do you mean by "soc"-level registers?
I propose we do it by defining the first (and ideally only, but that's
another argument) entry in ranges as the immr, and getting rid of /soc/reg.
>> And why is 82xx-pq2 special? Wouldn't you need this on 83xx, 85xx,
>> and 86xx as well?
> The range will cover the whole immr space on 83xx/85xx/86xx.
And why can't it do that on 82xx?
> 82xx-pq2 is special in that its soc regs are in the middle of the immr
> address map.
The /soc node is misnamed; it should really be /immr. Why do we need
these particular registers to be in /soc/reg rather than a subnode?
More information about the Linuxppc-dev