From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3CA1E1B4.B37909AD@mvista.com> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:13:56 -0500 From: "Mark A. Greer" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Cc: Val Henson , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs References: <3CA1031D.C072B4D6@mvista.com> <20020326214053.31653@mailhost.mipsys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: benh@kernel.crashing.org wrote: > Looks fine except for a couple of points: > > - BI_STRUCT is gone, it's BI_DEVICE and the first "type" field is gone, > that is BI_DEVICE just contains tags without a header. There is no need > to "know" if a given BI_REC is actually a struct or not, though if we > still want to do that for debugging reasons, we can define this info is > stored in the the high bit of the size field (and make sure bi_rec parsing > routines ignore that bit when reading size) > > - I'm not sure about the "EMBEDDED" dev type. I'd rather have a specific > type for EV64260_EMBEDDED, and another one for 405_EMBEDDED for example, > though this is mostly a matter of taste, we have enough room for types > to define as many as we want ;) > > Ben. Ahh, oops, didn't see this until after I send the second iteration the the bi_rec's. I'll send a third in a few minutes. Mark ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/