From: Mitch Bradley <wmb@firmworks.com>
To: Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com>
Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>,
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/fsl: add device tree binding for QE firmware
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:58:42 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BAD03E2.9020207@firmworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BAD018B.6010309@freescale.com>
Timur Tabi wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
>
>
>> Nah. That looks totally fine. Not having the firmware under a qe
>> node would look bad to me.
>>
>
> You don't think it weird to have one QE node reference data from another QE node, or that the DTS implies that the firmware belongs to one QE more than it belongs to the other?
>
It is certainly not symmetric.
Putting the firmware blob somewhere completely unrelated to either node
maintains the symmetry between the two qe nodes, but only weakly
captures the relationship between the firmware blob and the qe nodes.
It is then necessary to invoke a strong naming convention for the
firmware blob, because you don't have the hierarchy to do the name space
disambiguation for you.
As I see it, the three possibilities, and their disadvantages, are:
a) Firmware blob in some random place - requires strong naming of either
firmware blob property or node containing it.
b) Firmware blob within first qe node - asymmetric.
c) Firmware blob in new parent of both qe nodes - requires introduction
of otherwise-unneeded hierarchy level.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mitch Bradley <wmb-D5eQfiDGL7eakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Timur Tabi <timur-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>,
devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org,
linuxppc-dev-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/fsl: add device tree binding for QE firmware
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:58:42 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BAD03E2.9020207@firmworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BAD018B.6010309-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>
Timur Tabi wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
>
>
>> Nah. That looks totally fine. Not having the firmware under a qe
>> node would look bad to me.
>>
>
> You don't think it weird to have one QE node reference data from another QE node, or that the DTS implies that the firmware belongs to one QE more than it belongs to the other?
>
It is certainly not symmetric.
Putting the firmware blob somewhere completely unrelated to either node
maintains the symmetry between the two qe nodes, but only weakly
captures the relationship between the firmware blob and the qe nodes.
It is then necessary to invoke a strong naming convention for the
firmware blob, because you don't have the hierarchy to do the name space
disambiguation for you.
As I see it, the three possibilities, and their disadvantages, are:
a) Firmware blob in some random place - requires strong naming of either
firmware blob property or node containing it.
b) Firmware blob within first qe node - asymmetric.
c) Firmware blob in new parent of both qe nodes - requires introduction
of otherwise-unneeded hierarchy level.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-26 18:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 86+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-23 21:42 [PATCH] powerpc/fsl: add device tree binding for QE firmware Timur Tabi
2010-03-23 21:42 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-24 6:07 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-24 6:07 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-24 12:05 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-24 12:05 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-24 17:00 ` Segher Boessenkool
2010-03-24 17:00 ` Segher Boessenkool
2010-03-24 17:07 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-24 17:07 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-24 17:31 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-24 17:31 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-24 18:10 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-24 18:10 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-24 18:21 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-03-24 18:21 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-03-24 18:25 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-24 18:24 ` M. Warner Losh
2010-03-24 18:31 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-24 18:31 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 1:49 ` Segher Boessenkool
2010-03-25 1:49 ` Segher Boessenkool
2010-03-25 14:42 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 14:42 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 16:10 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 16:10 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 16:34 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 16:34 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 16:46 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 16:46 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-26 18:23 ` Rafal Jaworowski
2010-03-26 18:23 ` Rafal Jaworowski
2010-03-25 23:53 ` M. Warner Losh
2010-03-25 23:53 ` M. Warner Losh
2010-03-26 0:22 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-26 0:22 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 15:16 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 15:16 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 15:29 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-03-25 15:29 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-03-25 16:16 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 16:16 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 16:36 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 16:36 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 16:50 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 16:50 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 16:59 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 16:59 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 17:03 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 17:35 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 17:35 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 18:05 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 19:53 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 19:53 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 20:04 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 21:54 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 21:54 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 22:19 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 22:19 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-25 21:39 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 21:39 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-25 22:47 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 22:47 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-25 21:22 ` David Gibson
2010-03-25 21:22 ` David Gibson
2010-03-26 1:26 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 1:26 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 15:17 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-26 15:17 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-26 18:20 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 18:20 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 18:39 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-26 18:44 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 18:44 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 18:48 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-26 18:48 ` Timur Tabi
2010-03-26 18:56 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 18:56 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 18:58 ` Mitch Bradley [this message]
2010-03-26 18:58 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-03-26 19:07 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 19:07 ` Grant Likely
2010-03-26 18:48 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-03-26 18:48 ` Mitch Bradley
2010-03-24 18:27 ` Scott Wood
2010-03-24 18:27 ` Scott Wood
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4BAD03E2.9020207@firmworks.com \
--to=wmb@firmworks.com \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=scottwood@freescale.com \
--cc=timur@freescale.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.