[1/4] powerpc/fsl-booke: Add device tree support for T1024/T1023 SoC

[Shengzhou.Liu at freescale.com]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wood Scott-B07421
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 9:20 AM
> To: Liu Shengzhou-B36685
> Cc: linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [1/4] powerpc/fsl-booke: Add device tree support for
> T1024/T1023 SoC
> 
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 03:52:24PM +0800, Shengzhou Liu wrote:
> > +	corenet-cf at 18000 {
> > +		compatible = "fsl,corenet2-cf";
> 
> While the damage has already been done by the t1040 device tree, this is
> not 100% compatible with what's on t4240.  I'm not sure if it's worth
> doing anything about it at this point, given that you can tell the
> difference by the version register even though that register is reserved
> on t4240 and simliar chips, which is what I do in
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/419911/

Now here "fsl,corenet2-cf" is suitable for t1024 after your t1040 patch was merged.
T1024 and t1040 have the same version of ccf.

> 
> > +		reg = <0x18000 0x1000>;
> > +		interrupts = <16 2 1 31>;
> > +		fsl,ccf-num-csdids = <32>;
> > +		fsl,ccf-num-snoopids = <32>;
> 
> The t1040/t1024 CCM does not have CSD/Snoop IDs.
Removed.


> > +/include/ "qoriq-i2c-0.dtsi"
> > +/include/ "qoriq-i2c-1.dtsi"
> 
> t1023 has only three i2c controllers -- where do you disable the fourth?

u-boot will disable the fourth i2c controller.


> > +/include/ "t1023si-post.dtsi"
> > +&soc {
> > +	display:display at 180000 {
> > +		compatible = "fsl,t1024-diu", "fsl,diu";
> > +		reg = <0x180000 1000>;
> > +		interrupts = <74 2 0 0>;
> > +	};
> > +};
> 
> There are other differences between t1023 an t1024.  Where do you
> describe t1024's QE?  Where do you describe the DDR and IFC differences?
> can they be detected at runtime?  t1024 supports deep sleep, but t1023
> doesn't -- yet you label both chips as having t1024 rcpm.
> 
As QE IP block has not been upstream yet, so have to removed QE info in dts currently(same on t1040), 
DDR and IFC differences are in u-boot, not in dts.
Both t1023 and t1024 support sleep, so label both chips as having t1024 rcpm.
Only t1024 has deep sleep, the difference is identified in *.c not in dts (confirmed with deep sleep owner).