On 01/20/2012 10:27 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 20 January 2012 16:25, Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsd...@calxeda.com> wrote: >> On 01/20/2012 07:48 AM, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On 01/20/2012 02:47 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> On 19 January 2012 23:17, Rob Herring <rob.herr...@calxeda.com> wrote: >>>>> On 01/19/2012 03:44 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>>>> On 19 January 2012 21:31, Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsd...@calxeda.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> + highbank_binfo.board_id = 0xEC10100f; /* provided by deviceTree */ >>>>>> >>>>>> Where does this number come from? It's not in >>>>>> http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Is 3027 (==0xbd3) you? >>>>>> http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/list.php?id=3027 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Much of the data there is wrong as none of it is used. 0 or -1 is the >>>>> right value as those are obviously meaningless. A highbank kernel will >>>>> never be booted without devicetree and in that case this number is >>>>> irrelevant. This is the legacy boot interface and qemu really needs to >>>>> learn to boot with a separate dtb. >>>> >>>> Yeah, but the documentation even for DTB boot says we should pass >>>> in a machine number. If 0 or -1 are right then there should be >>>> some documentation that says so. I'll accept "mailing list post >>>> from some authoritative person [eg Grant Likely]" if necessary. >>> >>> Kernel DT co-maintainer is not authoritative enough for you? >> >> Peter, is that sufficient for me to send in the patch with a >> board_id of -1? Thanks. > > It's still not clear to me from this conversation if the right > answer is "0", "-1" or "anything that's not a valid board ID > and not -1 either"...
Quoting Rob from upthread: "0 or -1 is the right value as those are obviously meaningless." The original code that Rob wrote had a board_id of -1. That's the right answer. --Mark Langsdorf Calxeda, Inc.
