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

[Liu Po-B43644]

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Wood Scott-B07421
>  Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 11:47 PM
>  To: Liu Po-B43644
>  Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; linuxppc-dev at ozlabs.org; galak at kernel.crashing.org;
>  Fleming Andy-AFLEMING; Hu Mingkai-B21284
>  Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] powerpc/85xx: Add silicon device tree for
>  C293
>  
>  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.
Sorry, I've realize that.
The fact is that: when put the include into the crypto at xxxx, it can't compile success(make c293pcie.dtb as example). Error will show as:

ERROR (duplicate_node_names): Duplicate node name /soc at fffe00000/crypto at 80000/jr at 1000
  
>  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?
Since it will compile error in this way, so will not output .dtb file
>  
>  -Scott