> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Grant Likely
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 11:09 AM
> To: linuxppc-dev; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Refactor booting-without-of.txt
>
> Adding the Linux expec
On 10/16/07, Stephen Neuendorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about just 'device-tree', referring to any source, and then
> of-device-tree and flat-device-tree to document how the device tree is
> constructed.
> The fact that the API is poorly named is something that can always be
> fixed (and
> -Original Message-
> From:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> g
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
zlabs.org] On Behalf Of David Gibson
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 8:24 PM
> To: Grant Likely
> Cc: Olof Johansson; linuxppc-dev; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Refactor boo
On 10/16/07, Stephen Neuendorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a similar note, is there interest in actually factoring the device
> tree code out from the different architectures into a common codebase?
It's already happened somewhat. (Look in drivers/of and include/linux/of*.h)
However, I do
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 9:09 AM
> To: linuxppc-dev; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Refactor booting-without-of.txt
>
> Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to
> booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus
> with more than one arch u
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 09:02:09PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On 10/15/07, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant
On 10/15/07, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > > Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to
> > > booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people would like it to be,
> > not open firmware, nor is it the same as their bindings. So I think we'd
> > be doing ou
On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to
> > booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus
> > with more than one arch using the device tree (pow
On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to
> booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus
> with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc &
> microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't nec
Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to
booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus
with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc &
microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only
(the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this categ
12 matches
Mail list logo
