[PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts
scottwood at freescale.com
Sat Sep 3 03:52:38 EST 2011
On 09/01/2011 10:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 09/01/2011 02:26 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> The P4080 silicon device tree was using PowerPC,4080 while the other
>>> e500mc based SoCs used PowerPC,e500mc. Use the core name to be
>>> consistent going forward.
>> Why are we not using the generic names recommendation?
>> Is the "PowerPC" vendor string still appropriate here, or should we use
> I have mixed feelings on this. The PowerPC,NAME has a long history & precedence. Is there any use or value to change this?
It's inconsistent with all of our other compatibles. My understanding
is that for older chips, the naming was from a managed numberspace -- is
"e500" or "eXXXX" something that was explicitly granted to us by
power.org, or just something we started calling our cores?
More information about the Linuxppc-dev