On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 05:31:18PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

quoted

Regardless of the name of the
new property, it should be defined to allow a different number of
address cells to represent an address in virtual address space.

How about you check whether the "64-bit" property exists in the CPU
nodes?

That seemed like the right thing until I realized, its still specifying
the physical size, not the virtual size.

I don't think we can avoid making a new xxx-cells property for the virt
addr size.  Ben suggested adding #virt-address-cells to the root node.

I like the name but prefer putting it directly under "/cpus" because
the virt addr size is really determined by the cpu.  It doesn't matter
that much to me, though.

Comments?

Mark