Am 14.08.2013 12:18, schrieb Alexander Graf: > > On 12.08.2013, at 23:22, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > >> On Mon, 2013-08-12 at 21:17 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> Am Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:03:24 +1000 >>> schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org>: >>> >>>> On Mon, 2013-08-12 at 10:07 +0530, Prerna Saxena wrote: >>>> >>>> .../... >>>> >>>>> I dont know what context lead to this observation. >>>>> However, PAPR mentions the following nomenclature guideline: >>>>> >>>>> "The value of this property shall be of the form: “PowerPC,<name>”, >>>>> where <name> is the name of the processor chip which may be displayed to >>>>> the user. <name> shall not contain underscores." >>>> >>>> This actually comes from the original Open Firmware binding for PowerPC >>>> processors, which PAPR inherits largely from. Thus this naming scheme >>>> should apply to all PowerPC processors when a device-tree is involved. >>> >>> Well, I think it should be used when an Open Firmware environment is >>> used. When you boot via ePAPR device tree, the name should be "cpu" >>> instead, according to the ePAPR specification. >> >> Yeah well ... this is a gratuituous change in ePAPR, I don't think it >> matters really what the name is anyway. I'd suggest sticking to the >> original OF binding. > > Can't we just include the PowerPC, bit as part of the fw_name field in the > class? I don't think we have any CPUs that can be used both in ePAPR and > sPAPR environments. So the POWER7 fw_name field would just contain > "PowerPC,POWER7" and the device tree creation code merely appends the @%d > piece.
That's exactly what my patch series does, just be patient. :) Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
