From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from natklopstock.rzone.de (natklopstock.rzone.de [81.169.145.174]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D62467B75 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:36:21 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <4535CADC.5010100@bplan-gmbh.de> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:34:04 +0200 From: Nicolas DET MIME-Version: 1.0 To: michael@ellerman.id.au Subject: Re: [PATCH] enable RTAS /proc for PowerPC/CHRP platform References: <4534BE9D.7030908@bplan-gmbh.de> <20061017132243.GA6773@lst.de> <4535C0F8.1070905@bplan-gmbh.de> <1161152109.7906.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1161152109.7906.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------000800070500020609020308" Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Sven Luther , tilmann@bitterberg.de List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000800070500020609020308 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Ellerman wrote: >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64 >> >> +#define PROCRTAS_ROOT "ppc64" >> >> +#else >> >> +#define PROCRTAS_ROOT "ppc" >> > >> > Please don't do any pathname changes. Even if ppc64 isn't correct it's >> > what applications expect and what we should provide for a coherent user >> > interface. >> >> Humm, ok. >> However, in this case 'ppc' (could be 32 or 64 as it is not specified) >> is more generic than 'ppc64'. > > But it's called '/proc/ppc64' right now on lots of machines, so you > can't go changing it. Ok. No problem >> >> Indeed, however I can only test on CHRP. I'll remove the check in the >> upcomming patch. > > That should be fine AFAICT, you should probably just check that each of > the proc routines checks for errors - ie. just because you have an > "/rtas" node doesn't mean you necessarily have "/rtas/set-indicator" or > whatever. ok > >> The patch also include a small code to create the /proc/ppc/rtas entry. >> Should this be done here, or somewhere in arch/powerpc/chrp/setup.c ? > > That code is almost entirely the same as proc_ppc64_create(), so I think > you should try and merge them - we want to minimise the number of > foo_ppc64() and foo_ppc32() routines we have. > Ok. proc_ppc64_create() is now locate in arch/powerpc/kernel/proc_ppc64.c. Maybe a new file could be created (arch/powerpc/kernel/proc_ppc.c) ? Any other suggestions? Just indicate me the direction, and I would provide others patches. Regards --------------000800070500020609020308 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="nd.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="nd.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Nicolas DET ( bplan GmbH ) n:DET;Nicolas org:bplan GmbH adr:;;;;;;Germany email;internet:nd@bplan-gmbh.de title:Software Entwicklung tel;work:+49 6171 9187 - 31 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.bplan-gmbh.de version:2.1 end:vcard --------------000800070500020609020308--