From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andres Salomon Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sparc: break out some prom device-tree building code out into drivers/of Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:36:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20100629193618.5a840b8e@dev.queued.net> References: <20100628215407.2017bf2f@debian> <20100628220037.5744c207@debian> <20100629110324.2756cc02@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: sparclinux-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Grant Likely Cc: devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, cjb@laptop.org, Mitch Bradley , pgf@laptop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, Benjamin Herrenschmidt List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:42:54 -0600 Grant Likely wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Andres Salomon > wrote: [...] > > > Sparc and OLPC have very similar > > mechanisms for getting device tree info from OFW, so it makes sense > > to share code between them. > > Other than the flattened tree step; is the powerpc method dissimilar > from the Sparc and OLPC method for talking to OFW? (This is not a > rhetorical question, I'm want to know if I'm missing some details). > The main difference I know about is that OFW can still kept alive at > runtime for sparc, which powerpc does not do. However, keeping OFW > callable is a separate issue from how to extract the device tree. > After having a look at powerpc's flatten_device_tree, I don't see any obvious reason why OLPC couldn't use this (though it still strikes me as weird to go from prom->fdt->dt when the option of prom->dt is available and less complex). Do you already have the patches that put this into drivers/of/?