From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Gibson Subject: Re: having a keyword to specify the boot cpu like memreserve? Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:37:11 +1100 Message-ID: <20081111223711.GA16405@yookeroo.seuss> References: <9103EB04-3F34-4490-856F-B30B307B4B1F@kernel.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9103EB04-3F34-4490-856F-B30B307B4B1F-XVmvHMARGAS8U2dJNN8I7kB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org To: Kumar Gala Cc: devicetree-discuss List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:05:13AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > Does anyone have strong feelings about having something like: > > /dts-v1/; > > /boot-cpu/ 1; > > As a way to specify the boot cpu w/o doing dtc -b. (I would assume -b > would override the value in the .dts) I've thought about implementing exactly this before. The other option is to somehow mark the actual boot CPU node, and have dtc pick that up and set the boot cpu appropriately. But there's no reason we can't support both options in the long run (with an appropriate precedence order / error on conflicts). And this way is simpler to implement, so lets do it. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson