> > > Instead, how about a note like this near the top of the file:
> > >
> > > All references to "1.0" and "2.0" refer to the QorIQ chassis version
> > > to which the chip complies.
> > >
> > > Chassis Version Example Chips
> > > --------------- -------------
> > > 1.0 p4080, p5020, p5040
> > > 2.0 t4240, b4860, t1040
> > >
> > Better, I will update.
> >
> > >
> > > BTW, this binding and the associated driver really should be called
> > > "qoriq-clock", not "corenet-clock". This would match the compatible
> > > string, and it doesn't really have much to do with corenet (which is
> > > part of the QorIQ chassis v1 and v2, but not *this* part). Do you
> > > know if the chassis v3 clock interface will be similar enough to
> share a driver?
> > >
> > Doesn't QorIQ include some low-end socs, like p1022, p1020?
>
> Yes, but those aren't "QorIQ Chassis 1.0" or "QorIQ Chassis 2.0".
> They're mpc85xx-family chips.
>
> In any case, if "qoriq" makes sense for the compatible, I don't see why
> it doesn't make sense for the driver.
>
So, "Corenet" is appropriate for driver.
If something should change, that must be compatible string.
Regards,
Yuantian
> > This driver has nothing to do with these boards.
> > I have no idea about chassis v3. If it has similar clock tree, this
> driver can be shared.
> > Even the driver can't be used by v3, we can easily add v3 support
> > since it has different Compatible string.
>
> The reason I mentioned it is that chassis v3 will involve ARM chips that
> have their own interconnect rather than corenet.
>
> -Scott
>
��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�{��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
