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

[Shengzhou.Liu at freescale.com]

> > > 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, 
> Huh? 
> arch/powerpc/sysdev/qe_lib/

arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/qoriq-tdm1.0.dtsi has not been upstream by TDM owner.
Ok, I will first send qoriq-tdm1.0.dtsi upstream in order to include QE in t1024 dts.


> > DDR and IFC differences are in u-boot, not in dts. 
> The differences are in hardware, which is what the dts is supposed to describe.

Theoretically I think so, but not all hardware details must be described in dts
as current IP driver doesn't take care of it from dts.
If so, IP owners will have to update drivers, for now let's keep as it's.    

> > Both t1023 and t1024 support sleep, so label both chips as having t1024 rcpm.
> 
> That's not how it works.
> 
> > Only t1024 has deep sleep, the difference is identified in *.c not in dts (confirmed with deep sleep owner).
> 
> Even if the C code chooses to use SVR to identify the difference (why?),
> that doesn't mean it's OK for the device tree to contain wrong information.
 
Where is the wrong information?

        rcpm: global-utilities at e2000 {
                compatible = "fsl,t1024-rcpm", "fsl,qoriq-rcpm-2.0";
                reg = <0xe2000 0x1000>;
        };

        sdhc at 114000 {
                compatible = "fsl,t1024-esdhc", "fsl,esdhc";
                fsl,iommu-parent = <&pamu0>;
                fsl,liodn-reg = <&guts 0x530>; /* eSDHCLIODNR */
                sdhci,auto-cmd12;
                no-1-8-v;
                sleep = <&rcpm 0x00000080>;
        };
t1023 also supports sleep(not deep sleep), it needs the info above.