[PATCH v3 2/3] powerpc/85xx: Add silicon device tree for C293

[Scott Wood]

On 07/30/2013 09:13:28 PM, Liu Po-B43644 wrote:
> 
> >  -----Original Message-----
> >  From: Wood Scott-B07421
> >  Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:28 AM
> >  To: Liu Po-B43644
> >  Cc: linuxppc-dev at ozlabs.org; galak at kernel.crashing.org; Fleming  
> Andy-
> >  AFLEMING; Hu Mingkai-B21284; Liu Po-B43644
> >  Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] powerpc/85xx: Add silicon device tree  
> for
> >  C293
> >
> >  On 07/30/2013 03:49:22 AM, Po Liu wrote:
> >  > +	crypto at 80000 {
> >  > +/include/ "qoriq-sec6.0-0.dtsi"
> >  > +	};
> >  > +
> >  > +	crypto at 80000 {
> >  > +		reg = <0x80000 0x20000>;
> >  > +		ranges = <0x0 0x80000 0x20000>;
> >  > +
> >  > +		jr at 1000{
> >  > +			interrupts = <45 2 0 0>;
> >  > +		};
> >  > +		jr at 2000{
> >  > +			interrupts = <57 2 0 0>;
> >  > +		};
> >  > +	};
> >
> >  Do these inline the way the example shows.
> Sorry, Scott, I just remember in this way, the node can't be  
> recognized by system when run Uboot. The include can't be in the  
> crypto at 80000. See the discussion in  
> http://git.am.freescale.net:8181/#/c/736/  .
> Maybe I should re-modify the example file.

git.am.freescale.net is not accessible outside of Freescale; don't  
reference it on external lists.  In any case, I don't know what  
specifically you want me to look at there.  Just put the explanation  
here.

I do not expect the dtc output to be any different between the two  
methods.  Could you check this (by using dtc to decompile the dtb  
afterward) and point out exactly how the output differs between the two  
approaches?

-Scott