From: Jon Loeliger <hidden> Date: 2006-08-02 18:52:47
Signed-off-by: Jon Loeliger <redacted>
---
As per list discussion, let's add device tree source files
under powerpc/boot/dts. If nothing else, it is a starting point.
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8641_hpcn.dts | 338 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 338 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
From: Kumar Gala <hidden> Date: 2006-08-02 19:24:40
On Aug 2, 2006, at 1:48 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
Signed-off-by: Jon Loeliger <redacted>
---
As per list discussion, let's add device tree source files
under powerpc/boot/dts. If nothing else, it is a starting point.
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8641_hpcn.dts | 338 +++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++
1 files changed, 338 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Do we want to go ahead and fix the mac address field having the wrong
name?
- kumar
From: Sergei Shtylyov <hidden> Date: 2006-08-02 19:48:53
Hello.
Kumar Gala wrote:
Do we want to go ahead and fix the mac address field having the wrong
name?
If you mean "address" instead of "local-mac-address" then I guess
Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt should also be changed since it
has "address". And arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c as well..
From: Kumar Gala <hidden> Date: 2006-08-02 20:07:43
On Aug 2, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Hello.
Kumar Gala wrote:
quoted
Do we want to go ahead and fix the mac address field having the
wrong name?
If you mean "address" instead of "local-mac-address" then I
guess Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt should also be
changed since it has "address". And arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c
as well..
Yeah, fsl_soc.c should be updated to support both forms for a period
of time.
- kumar
From: Jon Loeliger <hidden> Date: 2006-08-02 20:15:54
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 14:24, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Aug 2, 2006, at 1:48 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
quoted
Signed-off-by: Jon Loeliger <redacted>
---
As per list discussion, let's add device tree source files
under powerpc/boot/dts. If nothing else, it is a starting point.
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8641_hpcn.dts | 338 +++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++
1 files changed, 338 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Do we want to go ahead and fix the mac address field having the wrong
name?
- kumar
Yeah, we have lined up Matt to make a comprehensive
update for this. Can we take my patch as-is? Matt will
follow up with a clean sweep, including fsl_socl.c, to
fix it all in one swell foop.
From: Kumar Gala <hidden> Date: 2006-08-02 20:30:34
On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 14:24, Kumar Gala wrote:
quoted
On Aug 2, 2006, at 1:48 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
quoted
Signed-off-by: Jon Loeliger <redacted>
---
As per list discussion, let's add device tree source files
under powerpc/boot/dts. If nothing else, it is a starting point.
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8641_hpcn.dts | 338 +++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++
1 files changed, 338 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Do we want to go ahead and fix the mac address field having the wrong
name?
- kumar
Yeah, we have lined up Matt to make a comprehensive
update for this. Can we take my patch as-is? Matt will
follow up with a clean sweep, including fsl_socl.c, to
fix it all in one swell foop.
I think this is one that is clearly something that should be fixed
before acceptance. Since we are talking about a dozen lines of
modifications. Especially since at this point having the .dts in the
tree doesn't really effect anything inside the kernel tree.
- kumar
From: Jon Loeliger <hidden> Date: 2006-08-02 20:40:45
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 15:30, Kumar Gala wrote:
quoted
Yeah, we have lined up Matt to make a comprehensive
update for this. Can we take my patch as-is? Matt will
follow up with a clean sweep, including fsl_socl.c, to
fix it all in one swell foop.
I think this is one that is clearly something that should be fixed
before acceptance. Since we are talking about a dozen lines of
modifications. Especially since at this point having the .dts in the
tree doesn't really effect anything inside the kernel tree.
- kumar
On the other hand, this matches what the kernel implements
today, and is already in use by several people around the
world. It _does_ have an affect and is based on things
inside the kernel tree today as it is.
Thanks,
jdl
From: Kumar Gala <hidden> Date: 2006-08-02 20:53:27
On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:36 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 15:30, Kumar Gala wrote:
quoted
quoted
Yeah, we have lined up Matt to make a comprehensive
update for this. Can we take my patch as-is? Matt will
follow up with a clean sweep, including fsl_socl.c, to
fix it all in one swell foop.
I think this is one that is clearly something that should be fixed
before acceptance. Since we are talking about a dozen lines of
modifications. Especially since at this point having the .dts in the
tree doesn't really effect anything inside the kernel tree.
- kumar
On the other hand, this matches what the kernel implements
today, and is already in use by several people around the
world. It _does_ have an affect and is based on things
inside the kernel tree today as it is.
True, but the people that are running this dont really care if the
dts is in the kernel or not. I think having an error in the kernel
tree that we know about is more of an issue. Its something we all
agree needs to be fixed.
Here is the code modification to fsl_soc.c, I'm sure we can get this
fixed push into 2.6.18 if desired.
if(mac_addr = get_property(np, "address", NULL))
memcpy(gfar_data.mac_addr, mac_addr, 6);
if(mac_addr = get_property(np, "local-mac-address", NULL);
memcpy(gfar_data.mac_addr, mac_addr, 6);
- kumar
I need to do something similar for Xen, so I was curious: I guess the
preferred way for runtime software to fill in values is by *overwriting*
bogus values inserted at compile time?
The other alternative would be for the runtime code to insert new
properties (presumably via memmove()), but overwriting definitely seems
simpler.
-Hollis
I need to do something similar for Xen, so I was curious: I guess the
preferred way for runtime software to fill in values is by *overwriting*
bogus values inserted at compile time?
The other alternative would be for the runtime code to insert new
properties (presumably via memmove()), but overwriting definitely seems
simpler.
Two reasons you may want to overwrite instead of insert a new one (at
least for now):
1) Strictly opinion: Its nice to be able to see the completely
functional tree and not one that's missing a critical property
that is magically inserted behind the scenes.
2) Strictly practical for now: If you plan on using a zImage with
the fdt patches that are being discussed right now, the fdt code
doesn't currently support inserting a new property, only modifying an
existing one. Patches always welcome though! :)
Mark