On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Gleb Natapov <g...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 03:35:38PM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Gleb Natapov <g...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > This is current sate of the patch series for people to comment on. >> > I dropped ioport double reservation checking from isa-bus and added >> > bus_id field for IDE bus since as Markus pointed out unit has different >> > meaning there. >> > >> > This patch series produce names like: >> > >> > i...@03f1-03f5,03f7/f...@a >> > i...@03f1-03f5,03f7/f...@b >> > p...@0000:00:01.1/i...@1:0 >> > p...@0000:00:01.1/i...@1:1 >> > p...@0000:00:03.0/virtio-...@0 >> > p...@0000:00:04.0/virtio-...@0 >> > >> > They will be passed to BIOS to determine boot order. >> >> We also use OpenBIOS for PPC and Sparcs. A compatible boot device for >> those would be OpenFirmware tree name. I think your names should then >> become: >> /pci/isa/f...@3f1/f...@0 >> /pci/isa/f...@3f1/f...@1 > Why is it PCI?
I just assumed a PCI to ISA bridge. >> /pci/i...@0/1,0 >> /pci/i...@0/1,1 > Where pci address here? > >> /pci/virtio-...@1 >> /pci/virtio-...@2 > And here? That was the part I invented. > And we will need to describe ROMs too. I planned to have something like: > r...@romfilename for roms loaded with -option-rom command line option. I don't think OF has standard for those. >> >> The PCI addressing scheme in OF was a bit twisty, I just invented >> integers in place of those. >> >> Anyway, I don't think we should invent yet another device path naming system. > IS this format documented somewhere? I am not attached to specific > format at all. A lot of docs are here: http://playground.sun.com/pub/p1275/home.html Here's the PCI bindings doc: http://playground.sun.com/pub/p1275/bindings/pci/pci2_1.pdf
