On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 21:19 -0500, Jia Hongtao-B38951 wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wood Scott-B07421 > > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 3:38 AM > > To: Jia Hongtao-B38951 > > Cc: edubezval@xxxxxxxxx; linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] QorIQ/TMU: add TMU node to device tree for > > QorIQ > > T104x > > > > On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 01:33 -0500, Jia Hongtao-B38951 wrote: > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1040si-post.dtsi > > > > b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1040si-post.dtsi > > > > index 15ae462..bb9f792 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1040si-post.dtsi > > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1040si-post.dtsi > > > > @@ -345,6 +345,7 @@ > > > > reg = <0xea000 0x4000>; > > > > }; > > > > > > > > +/include/ "qoriq-tmu-t104xsi.dtsi" > > > > /include/ "elo3-dma-0.dtsi" > > > > /include/ "elo3-dma-1.dtsi" > > > > /include/ "qoriq-espi-0.dtsi" > > > > Why is this chip-specific enough to be called "t104xsi", but not > > chip- > > specific enough to just go directly into t1040si-post? > > T104x platform share the same calibration data. Which t104x are you referring to that doesn't use t1040si-post.dtsi? Plus, given the numbering scheme it's always possible that a new t104x comes out that has little to do with existing t104x. -Scott -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
