On 07/24/2012 01:55 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote:
>
>>>>> + compatible = "fsl,P5040";
>>>>
>>>> When would we not override this?
>>>
>>> I don't understand.
>>
>> I was wondering why we put these chip-based toplevel compatibles in the
>> dtsi, when we'll always overwrite it with a board-based toplevel compatible.
>
> That's a good point, but I'm loathe to break the current convention. I'd
> rather post a patch that removes them from all boards, but I'd like an ACK
> from Kumar first.
Yeah, that was more a question for Kumar and the list than a "remove
this" request.
>>>> Why are kernel/dtb read only?
>>>
>>> Because that's how it is on the P5020!
>>
>> This is a copy-and-paste meme that I've probably complained about a few
>> dozen times by now. :-)
>
> I know, I know, but you would think problems like this would already be
> fixed upstream. I didn't think I would need to review every single
> property in the P5020 device trees.
In this particular case I should probably go fix the existing trees, but
in general blind copy and paste is a bad thing.
Maybe we should have include files for common partition schemes.
>>> This is how the structure is defined in smp.c:
>>>
>>> struct smp_ops_t smp_85xx_ops = {
>>> .kick_cpu = smp_85xx_kick_cpu,
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC
>>> .give_timebase = smp_generic_give_timebase,
>>> .take_timebase = smp_generic_take_timebase,
>>> #endif
>>> };
>>>
>>> This code has not changed in years.
>>
>> There was a patch to fix this, but I guess it hasn't been merged yet.
>
> Can you give me a clue which patch this is, so I can find it on the
> mailing list?
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/172243/
...but it only deals with e500v2 so far, so I was wrong when I said that
patch fixes it. Once we do the equivalent thing for e500mc we can
remove all mpc85xx references to the generic tbsync code.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
