[PATCH 1/2][v7] powerpc/mpc85xx:Add initial device tree support of T104x

[Prabhakar Kushwaha]

On 10/02/2013 01:26 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 08:56 +0530, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote:
>> On 10/01/2013 01:17 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 12:24 +0530, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote:
>>>>       - Removed l2switch. It will be added later
>>> Why?
>> I am not aware of bindings required for l2switch as we are not working
>> on the driver.
>> Earlier I thought of putting a place holder. but as you suggested to put
>> bindings in documentation.
>> It will be good if it is put by actual driver owner.
> Is there a reason to believe the binding will be complicated?
>
> Does any such "driver owner" exist yet?

I don't know, as I am unaware of l2switch driver.

>
>>>> +sata at 220000 {
>>>> +			fsl,iommu-parent = <&pamu0>;
>>>> +			fsl,liodn-reg = <&guts 0x550>; /* SATA1LIODNR */
>>>> +};
>>>> +/include/ "qoriq-sata2-1.dtsi"
>>>> +sata at 221000 {
>>>> +			fsl,iommu-parent = <&pamu0>;
>>>> +			fsl,liodn-reg = <&guts 0x554>; /* SATA2LIODNR */
>>>> +};
>>> Whitespace
>> do we have any scripts which check for whitespace as checkpatch never
>> give any warning/error.
>> it is a very silly mistake which I am doing continuously :(
> checkpatch doesn't check dts files.
Manual check :(

>>>> +/include/ "t1040si-post.dtsi"
>>> Should at least have a comment indicating that eventually this should
>>> hold the l2 switch node.
>> yes. Ideally it should be.
>> but if I put a comment then I believe this patch will not be completed.
>> it will think as a RFC.
>> as I believe putting of TODO is generally for RFC patches.
> As is, one would wonder why the separate file exists at all.
>
> The TODO is there whether you have a comment acknowledging it or
> not. :-)
>
>
I agree. I will add a comments.

Regards,
Prabhakar