Re: Anyone using "PowerPC" little-endian mode?

2010-06-13 Thread Brad Boyer
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 06:25:01AM -0600, Gary Thomas wrote: > I don't know about today, but my recollection is that the only > use of little-endian mode on PowerPC was during the early days > attempt to run Windows-NT. You could potentially hit this case by running Mac on Linux. A handful of Mac

Re: [PATCH] device-tree: Drop properties with "/" in their name

2010-06-13 Thread Christian Kujau
On Wed, 19 May 2010 at 22:32, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Some bogus firmwares include properties with "/" in their name. This > causes problems when creating the /proc/device-tree file system, > because the slash is taken to indicate a directory. > > We don't care about those properties, and we don

Re: [PATCH] device-tree: Drop properties with "/" in their name

2010-06-13 Thread Michael Ellerman
On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 00:47 -0700, Christian Kujau wrote: > On Wed, 19 May 2010 at 22:32, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > Some bogus firmwares include properties with "/" in their name. This > > causes problems when creating the /proc/device-tree file system, > > because the slash is taken to indicate

Re: Request review of device tree documentation

2010-06-13 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 20:45 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote: > Either fought or embraced. To the extent that it is possible to focus > solely on Linux and ARM, one could image doing a good HAL. That will come with a huge amount of comunity resistance sadly, but I can imagine distros liking it. In g

Re: Request review of device tree documentation

2010-06-13 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 20:45 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote: > > BTW. I notice no ARM list is CCed on this discussion ... maybe we > should > > fix that ? > > > > Sounds like a good idea. Do you know which list(s) would be good > candidates? Forgot to reply to that one ... I'd say linux-arm-ker

Re: Request review of device tree documentation

2010-06-13 Thread Jeremy Kerr
hi Ben, > Maybe a paragraph on the new proposed clock binding that Jeremy is > working would be of use btw. Here's one I prepared earlier: http://devicetree.org/ClockBindings :) Cheers, Jeremy ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs

Re: Request review of device tree documentation

2010-06-13 Thread Grant Likely
[cc'ing linux-arm-kernel because we're discussing ARM issues] On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote: > Grant Likely wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 06:30 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote: >>> >>>

Re: Request review of device tree documentation

2010-06-13 Thread Grant Likely
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 23:07 -0600, Grant Likely wrote: >> >> What is needed to keep OFW alive?  I've got no problem with doing so >> if it isn't invasive, and as long as the same boot entry interface can >> be used. > > Well, no. OF

Re: Request review of device tree documentation

2010-06-13 Thread Grant Likely
[cc'ing linux-arm-kernel] On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 19:39 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote: > >> Minimally, OFW needs to own some memory that the kernel won't steal. >> OFW on ARM is position-independent, so it can be tucked up at the top of

Re: Request review of device tree documentation

2010-06-13 Thread Grant Likely
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 20:45 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote: > >> Either fought or embraced.  To the extent that it is possible to focus >> solely on Linux and ARM, one could image doing a good HAL. > > That will come with a huge amount o

Re: Request review of device tree documentation

2010-06-13 Thread Grant Likely
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Jeremy Kerr wrote: > hi Ben, > >> Maybe a paragraph on the new proposed clock binding that Jeremy is >> working would be of use btw. > > Here's one I prepared earlier: > > http://devicetree.org/ClockBindings Yup, but the documents have difference purposes. ClockB

Re: Request review of device tree documentation

2010-06-13 Thread Grant Likely
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Stephan Gatzka wrote: > Hi Grant, > >> I've been doing a bit of work on some introductory level documentation >> of the flattened device tree.  I've got a rough copy up on the >> devicetree.org wiki, and I could use some feedback.  If anyone has >> some time to lo

Re: Request review of device tree documentation

2010-06-13 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 23:13 -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > We use that to suck the device-tree, which we flatten, and then > re-enter > > the kernel with the "common" entry interface. > > I don't think I want to do the same on ARM. I'd rather have the > prom_init stuff in a boot wrapper, or have

Re: Request review of device tree documentation

2010-06-13 Thread Mitch Bradley
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 23:13 -0600, Grant Likely wrote: We use that to suck the device-tree, which we flatten, and then re-enter the kernel with the "common" entry interface. I don't think I want to do the same on ARM. I'd rather have the pr