Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] arm: SoC model for Calxeda Highbank

2012-01-21 Thread Grant Likely
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 01:57:29PM +, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 20 January 2012 13:48, Rob Herring wrote: > > Kernel DT co-maintainer is not authoritative enough for you? > > Only if I recognise their name :-) [ie, sorry.] > > > The documentation needs some clarification. > > > >> But this i

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] arm: SoC model for Calxeda Highbank

2012-01-21 Thread Grant Likely
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 07:48:09AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On 01/20/2012 02:47 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On 19 January 2012 23:17, Rob Herring wrote: > >> On 01/19/2012 03:44 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > >>> On 19 January 2012 21:31, Mark Langsdorf > >>> wrote: > +highbank_binfo.bo

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] arm: SoC model for Calxeda Highbank

2012-01-20 Thread Peter Maydell
On 20 January 2012 18:27, Grant Likely wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 01:57:29PM +, Peter Maydell wrote: >> I wonder if we should be passing in anything-except-minus-1, >> since if you pass -1 and no DT then the kernel will fail >> silently, whereas if you pass something else and no DT the >

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] arm: SoC model for Calxeda Highbank

2012-01-20 Thread Peter Maydell
On 20 January 2012 19:25, Mark Langsdorf wrote: > It looks like there's an issue with commit 2be276242135eac6, > in that target-arm/helper.c:cpu_reset() is called after > hw/highbank.c:highbank_cpu_reset() and keeps clobbering > our c15_config_base_address. You may recall that when you first sent

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] arm: SoC model for Calxeda Highbank

2012-01-20 Thread Mark Langsdorf
On 01/20/2012 10:58 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 20 January 2012 16:57, Mark Langsdorf wrote: >> On 01/20/2012 10:27 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> 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".

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] arm: SoC model for Calxeda Highbank

2012-01-20 Thread Peter Maydell
On 20 January 2012 16:57, Mark Langsdorf wrote: > On 01/20/2012 10:27 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> 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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] arm: SoC model for Calxeda Highbank

2012-01-20 Thread Mark Langsdorf
On 01/20/2012 10:27 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 20 January 2012 16:25, Mark Langsdorf 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 wrote: > On 01/19/2012 03:44 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] arm: SoC model for Calxeda Highbank

2012-01-20 Thread Peter Maydell
On 20 January 2012 16:25, Mark Langsdorf 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 wrote: On 01/19/2012 03:44 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 19 January 2012 21:31, Mark Langsdorf > wr

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] arm: SoC model for Calxeda Highbank

2012-01-20 Thread Mark Langsdorf
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 wrote: >>> On 01/19/2012 03:44 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: On 19 January 2012 21:31, Mark Langsdorf wrote: > +highbank_binfo.board_id = 0xEC10100f; /*

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] arm: SoC model for Calxeda Highbank

2012-01-20 Thread Peter Maydell
On 20 January 2012 13:48, Rob Herring wrote: > Kernel DT co-maintainer is not authoritative enough for you? Only if I recognise their name :-) [ie, sorry.] > The documentation needs some clarification. > >> But this is an ABI between boot loaders and the kernel so I don't >> want to just have so

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] arm: SoC model for Calxeda Highbank

2012-01-20 Thread Rob Herring
On 01/20/2012 02:47 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 19 January 2012 23:17, Rob Herring wrote: >> On 01/19/2012 03:44 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 19 January 2012 21:31, Mark Langsdorf wrote: +highbank_binfo.board_id = 0xEC10100f; /* provided by deviceTree */ >>> >>> Where does this numb

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] arm: SoC model for Calxeda Highbank

2012-01-20 Thread Peter Maydell
On 19 January 2012 23:17, Rob Herring wrote: > On 01/19/2012 03:44 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 19 January 2012 21:31, Mark Langsdorf wrote: >>> +    highbank_binfo.board_id = 0xEC10100f; /* provided by deviceTree */ >> >> Where does this number come from? It's not in >> http://www.arm.linux.or

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] arm: SoC model for Calxeda Highbank

2012-01-19 Thread John Williams
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On 01/19/2012 03:44 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On 19 January 2012 21:31, Mark Langsdorf > wrote: > >> +highbank_binfo.board_id = 0xEC10100f; /* provided by deviceTree */ > > > > Where does this number come from? It's not in > > http://ww

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] arm: SoC model for Calxeda Highbank

2012-01-19 Thread Rob Herring
On 01/19/2012 03:44 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 19 January 2012 21:31, Mark Langsdorf 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?

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] arm: SoC model for Calxeda Highbank

2012-01-19 Thread Peter Maydell
On 19 January 2012 21:31, Mark Langsdorf 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?i