From: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
To: "David VomLehn (dvomlehn)" <dvomlehn@cisco.com>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>,
prasun.kapoor@caviumnetworks.com, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: Device Tree questions WRT MIPS/Octeon SOCs.
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:42:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CB89275.8020502@caviumnetworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7A9214B0DEB2074FBCA688B30B04400D01B50901@XMB-RCD-208.cisco.com>
On 10/15/2010 10:30 AM, David VomLehn (dvomlehn) wrote:
> If this is really a question of needing to dynamically generate the
> device tree, then you have no choice. It's worth mentioning, though,
> that the device tree compiler (dtc) does have the ability to include
> files, making it easier to create and maintain device trees that are
> static but which share devices.
Some experimentation will be necessary. We will have to patch in some
properties like the Ethernet MAC address as that is stored in a
separate eeprom. Also some boards have pluggable I/O modules, so we
may not know at dtb generation time what is there.
David Daney
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org [mailto:linux-mips-bounce@linux-
>> mips.org] On Behalf Of Grant Likely
>> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:29 PM
>> To: Warner Losh
>> Cc: ddaney@caviumnetworks.com; prasun.kapoor@caviumnetworks.com; linux-
>> mips@linux-mips.org; devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
>> Subject: Re: Device Tree questions WRT MIPS/Octeon SOCs.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Warner Losh<imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>>> In message:<AANLkTi=UM2p26JJMqv-
>> cNh8xACS_KPf_dCst5cgmh5VR@mail.gmail.com>
>>> Grant Likely<grant.likely@secretlab.ca> writes:
>>> : Overall the plan makes sense, however I would suggest the
>> following.
>>> : instead of 'live' modifying the tree, another option is to carry a
>> set
>>> : of 'stock' device trees in the kernel; one per board. Of course
>> this
>>> : assumes that your current ad-hoc code is keying on the specific
>> board.
>>> : If it is interpreting data provided by the firmware, then your
>>> : suggestion of modifying a single stock tree probably makes more
>> sense,
>>> : or possibly a combination of the too. In general you should avoid
>>> : live modification as much as possible.
>>>
>>> The one draw back on this is that there's lots of different "stock"
>>> boards that the Cavium Octeon SDK supports. These will be difficult
>>> to drag along for every kernel. And they'd be mostly the same to,
>>> which is why I think that David is suggesting the live modification
>>> thing...
>>
>> Okay. Do what makes the most sense for your platform.
>>
>> g.
>
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Daney <ddaney-M3mlKVOIwJVv6pq1l3V1OdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
To: "David VomLehn (dvomlehn)"
<dvomlehn-FYB4Gu1CFyUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: prasun.kapoor-M3mlKVOIwJVv6pq1l3V1OdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org,
devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org,
linux-mips-6z/3iImG2C8G8FEW9MqTrA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: Device Tree questions WRT MIPS/Octeon SOCs.
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:42:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CB89275.8020502@caviumnetworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7A9214B0DEB2074FBCA688B30B04400D01B50901-2KNrN6/GZtCQwNoRDPPJJaBKnGwkPULj@public.gmane.org>
On 10/15/2010 10:30 AM, David VomLehn (dvomlehn) wrote:
> If this is really a question of needing to dynamically generate the
> device tree, then you have no choice. It's worth mentioning, though,
> that the device tree compiler (dtc) does have the ability to include
> files, making it easier to create and maintain device trees that are
> static but which share devices.
Some experimentation will be necessary. We will have to patch in some
properties like the Ethernet MAC address as that is stored in a
separate eeprom. Also some boards have pluggable I/O modules, so we
may not know at dtb generation time what is there.
David Daney
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: linux-mips-bounce-6z/3iImG2C8G8FEW9MqTrA@public.gmane.org [mailto:linux-mips-bounce@linux-
>> mips.org] On Behalf Of Grant Likely
>> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:29 PM
>> To: Warner Losh
>> Cc: ddaney-M3mlKVOIwJVv6pq1l3V1OdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org; prasun.kapoor-M3mlKVOIwJVv6pq1l3V1OdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org; linux-
>> mips-6z/3iImG2C8G8FEW9MqTrA@public.gmane.org; devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org
>> Subject: Re: Device Tree questions WRT MIPS/Octeon SOCs.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Warner Losh<imp-uzTCJ5RojNnQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> In message:<AANLkTi=UM2p26JJMqv-
>> cNh8xACS_KPf_dCst5cgmh5VR-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
>>> Grant Likely<grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org> writes:
>>> : Overall the plan makes sense, however I would suggest the
>> following.
>>> : instead of 'live' modifying the tree, another option is to carry a
>> set
>>> : of 'stock' device trees in the kernel; one per board. Of course
>> this
>>> : assumes that your current ad-hoc code is keying on the specific
>> board.
>>> : If it is interpreting data provided by the firmware, then your
>>> : suggestion of modifying a single stock tree probably makes more
>> sense,
>>> : or possibly a combination of the too. In general you should avoid
>>> : live modification as much as possible.
>>>
>>> The one draw back on this is that there's lots of different "stock"
>>> boards that the Cavium Octeon SDK supports. These will be difficult
>>> to drag along for every kernel. And they'd be mostly the same to,
>>> which is why I think that David is suggesting the live modification
>>> thing...
>>
>> Okay. Do what makes the most sense for your platform.
>>
>> g.
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-15 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-15 0:17 Device Tree questions WRT MIPS/Octeon SOCs David Daney
2010-10-15 0:17 ` David Daney
2010-10-15 0:32 ` Grant Likely
2010-10-15 0:32 ` Grant Likely
2010-10-15 1:13 ` Warner Losh
2010-10-15 1:13 ` Warner Losh
2010-10-15 1:29 ` Grant Likely
2010-10-15 1:29 ` Grant Likely
2010-10-15 17:30 ` David VomLehn (dvomlehn)
2010-10-15 17:30 ` David VomLehn (dvomlehn)
2010-10-15 17:42 ` David Daney [this message]
2010-10-15 17:42 ` David Daney
2010-10-15 17:48 ` David VomLehn (dvomlehn)
2010-10-15 17:48 ` David VomLehn (dvomlehn)
2010-10-16 3:45 ` Grant Likely
2010-10-16 3:45 ` Grant Likely
2010-10-16 6:24 ` David Gibson
2010-10-16 6:24 ` David Gibson
2010-10-16 6:20 ` David Gibson
2010-10-16 6:20 ` David Gibson
2010-10-16 3:48 ` Grant Likely
2010-10-16 3:48 ` Grant Likely
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=4CB89275.8020502@caviumnetworks.com \
--to=ddaney@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=dvomlehn@cisco.com \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=imp@bsdimp.com \
--cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
--cc=prasun.kapoor@caviumnetworks.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.