On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:41:35 -0500 Yoder Stuart-B08248 <b08...@freescale.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wood Scott-B07421 > > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 1:05 PM > > > > Just because Linux does it that way now doesn't mean it needs to. The > > interrupt controller > > has a compatible property. Match on it like any other device. You can > > find which one is the > > root interrupt controller by looking for nodes with the > > interrupt-controller property that > > doesn't have an explicit interrupt-parent (or an interrupts property? > > seems to be a conflict > > between ePAPR and the original interrupt mapping document). > > This may be the right long term thing to do, but restructuring > how Linux powerpc platforms work is a bigger effort. I was looking > for an incremental improvement over what we do now, which is pass > a compatible of MPC8544DS and P4080DS for these virtual platforms. A hack is usually easier than doing it right. :-) Though often the effort required for the latter is overstated, and the "right long term thing" never makes the jump to "short term plan". There are a few things that need to be driven off the device tree that currently aren't -- using some mechanism other than the standard device model, if necessary (or as a first step) -- and then we need a does-nothing default platform as the match of last resort. > However, they _are_ compatible with MPC8544DS and P4080DS so maybe > leaving the compatible string alone is ok for now. The virtual platforms are not compatible with MPC8544DS or P4080DS. Only a subset of what is on those boards is provided. And in the case of direct device assignment, often the things that are present are incompatible (e.g. different type of eTSEC). -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev