Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:01:42 +1100
> Von: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> An: Gerhard Pircher
> CC: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
> Betreff: Re: [PATCH 2/5] powerpc: Generic device tree for all AmigaOne boards
> >
> I think I throw away the IDE controller node for now, as libata just reads
> the PCI register settings (progif) and I guess the IDE subsystem will do
> the same in the future.
Well... if all AmigaOne use a 8259, they probably use the same interrupt
routing except for PCI slots. In which case, I
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:12:18 +1100
> Von: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> An: Gerhard Pircher
> CC: Grant Likely , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
> Betreff: Re: [PATCH 2/5] powerpc: Generic device tree for all AmigaOne boards
> The code in the ker
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 09:41 -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
>> For the flattened device tree, I think we've settled on the convention
>> that every node with an IRQ connection should have both the
>> interrupt-parent and interrupts prope
> Yes, all AmigaOne boards have physical PCI slots (at least 1). The different
> interrupt routing wasn't a problem so far, as the firmware writes the IRQ
> number
> to the interrupt line register of every PCI device.
The code in the kernel that retreives the interrupt that way is clearly
marked
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 09:41 -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> For the flattened device tree, I think we've settled on the convention
> that every node with an IRQ connection should have both the
> interrupt-parent and interrupts properties. (ie. don't rely on the
> parent node's interrupt-parent proper
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:41:14 -0700
> Von: "Grant Likely"
> An: "Gerhard Pircher"
> CC: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
> Betreff: Re: [PATCH 2/5] powerpc: Generic device tree for all AmigaOne boards
> Sounds to me like y
Grant Likely wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
It doesn't seem any more likely to introduce a fault by specifying the
interrupt controller in one place than in many places.
We do the same thing with #address-cells and #size-cells for the same
reason. You can get away w
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Scott Wood
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Defensive programming. To not rely on implicit relationships
>
> It doesn't seem any more likely to introduce a fault by specifying the
> interrup
Grant Likely wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 09:41:14AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
+ 8...@60 {
+ device_type = "8042";
+ reg = <1 0x0060 0x0001
+
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 09:41:14AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
>> > + 8...@60 {
>> > + device_type = "8042";
>> > + reg = <1 0x0060 0x0001
>> > +
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 09:41:14AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> > + 8...@60 {
> > + device_type = "8042";
> > + reg = <1 0x0060 0x0001
> > + 1 0x0064 0x0001>;
> > +
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Gerhard Pircher wrote:
> This device tree does not provide the correct CPU name, as various CPU
> models and revisions are used in AmigaOnes. Also the PCI root node does
> not contain a interrupt mapping property, as all boards have different
> interrupt routing. H
13 matches
Mail list logo
