From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0D967A03 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 19:01:59 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Kill machine numbers From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Olof Johansson In-Reply-To: <20060324062624.GA16815@pb15.lixom.net> References: <1143178947.4257.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060324062624.GA16815@pb15.lixom.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 19:01:38 +1100 Message-Id: <1143187298.3710.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev list , Paul Mackerras , Linux Kernel list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > It would be very useful to print the ppc_md.name of the found machine > here, even without debugging enabled. Not sure ... without debugging enabled, it's likely that you won't see anything that early anyway :) > > -struct machdep_calls __initdata cell_md = { > > +define_machine(cell) { > > .probe = cell_probe, > > .setup_arch = cell_setup_arch, > > .init_early = cell_init_early, > > You forgot to add a .name value here. Yup, thanks. I think this should become cpb instead of cell, other cell based boards would then have different ppc_md's though they could share various routines. > > Index: linux-work/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-work.orig/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c 2006-03-10 15:58:17.000000000 +1100 > > +++ linux-work/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c 2006-03-24 14:41:14.000000000 +1100 > [...] > > + /* If not a mac, try to figure out if it's an IBM pSeries. We assume > > + * it is if : > > + * - /device_type is "chrp" (please, do NOT use that for future > > + * non-IBM designs ! > > + * - it has /rtas > > + */ > > It's really weird that IBM chose to use "chrp" to describe a > PAPR-compliant platform. I guess it's for historical reasons, but it > sure isn't CHRP any more. Yup, I'm trying to get that changed in the architecture but even if I'm successful, we'll have to deal with existing machines. > Also, please change the wording. With power.org, there will likely be > non-IBM PAPR-compliant platforms at some point. "non-PAPR-compliant > designs" is a better term to use. Ok. > > Index: linux-work/Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-work.orig/Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt 2006-03-24 11:42:13.000000000 +1100 > > +++ linux-work/Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt 2006-03-24 14:28:27.000000000 +1100 > > @@ -719,6 +719,10 @@ address which can extend beyond that lim > > - model : this is your board name/model > > - #address-cells : address representation for "root" devices > > - #size-cells: the size representation for "root" devices > > + - device_type : This property shouldn't be necessary. However, if > > + device to create a device_type for your root node, make sure it > > if you device to create... ? I was tired :) If you "decide" to create.. will fix, thanks. > > + is _not_ "chrp" as this will be matched by the kernel to be a > > + CHRP machine on 32 bits kernel or a pSeries on 64 bits kernels > > ...or a PAPR-compliant machine on 64-bit kernels. > > (Also, "xx-bit kernels", not "xx bits kernels"). yeah yeah :) Thanks for the review anyway ! Cheers, Ben.