[PATCH 1/4] powerpc/85xx: Rename PowerPC core nodes to match other e500mc based .dts
galak at kernel.crashing.org
Sat Sep 3 04:29:29 EST 2011
On Sep 2, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> 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?
The names for PPC cores are NOT granted by anyone. However, its pretty clear that FSLs current naming is:
More information about the Linuxppc-dev