Re: [PATCH 3/3] First cut at PReP support for arch/powerpc

quoted

quoted

Too big for the list, the patch is at:
	http://ozlabs.org/~dgibson/home/prep-support

Too lazy to split the patch into bite-size chunks, you mean ;-)

Well... much as I like small patches, I don't really like having a big
string of patches, each of which does basically nothing on its own,
i.e. split up just for the sake of making smaller, rather than into
separate logically separate changes.

Yeah I understand.  It's just that I had to dig out the DTS
part :-)

quoted

+			external-control;

Really?

No idea, just copied that from earlier work of Paulus'.  Don't even
know what the property means.

It seems to me a flat device tree could leave out all those
properties that can be derived from the PVR (except for the
few that are really useful for bootloaders and such -- cache
line size, 64-bit-or-not, what kind of MMU).  Linux doesn't
use it anyway.  Existing DTSs already leave away most.

quoted

+	pci@80000000 {
+		device_type = "pci";
+		compatible = "prep";

Is that specific enough?

Well, AFAICT, the prep PCI code doesn't need any more info.

If PReP requires a specific programming model for the PCI
host bridge, that would be fine.  But then compatible =
"prep-pci-bridge" or such, not just "prep"; everything on
your board is "prep", it would make matching a bit hard ;-)

quoted

I can't believe this "ranges" and interrupt mapping will
work on all PReP systems...

Probably not, but it should work on a chunk of them.  Like I say,
there's still a good deal more that needs to be filled in from
residual data or wherever.

Sure, I'm just pointing out things that seem problematic, I'm
not saying your code can't be merged because of that -- esp.
since it is a new port anyway (for arch/powerpc, that is).

quoted

What is the plan here -- have the bootwrapper build the
device tree / fill in the details from the residual data?

Not sure at this stage if it will be best for the bootwrapper to build
a complete tree from residual, or to have a dts skeleton with
substantial chunks filled in by bootwrapper from residual.

Conceptually those two options are pretty much the same thing;
just try them out, see what is nicer for the implementation.

I was
intending to merge libfdt into the kernel for more flexible device
tree manipulation before investigating that further.

Into the kernel wrapper, I think you mean?


Segher