> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wood Scott-B07421
> Sent: 2014年1月24日 星期五 10:36
> To: Tang Yuantian-B29983
> Cc: galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Kushwaha Prabhakar-B32579
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: corenet: Update the clock bindings
>
> On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:33 -0600, Tang Yuantian-B29983 wrote:
> > > > > 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.
>
> No. Corenet is a bus interconnect, not a chip family (despite abuse of
> the name in other contexts in Linux/U-Boot). And the binding with qoriq
> has already been accepted.
>
QorIQ is not the best name either since it include the low-end socs.
What the name should be?
Regards,
Yuantian
> -Scott
>
��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�{��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
