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 7A05BDDF0B for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:07:49 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Start split out of common open firmware code From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20070424.110456.124867547.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20070424223245.78f4fdfb.sfr@canb.auug_.org.au> <20070424.110456.124867547.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:07:31 +1000 Message-Id: <1177459651.14873.164.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > I totally disagree that you should be changing anything > during these consolidations. > > Move the code around in one pass where you can _VERIFY_ > that things are precisely the same and won't break. > > Then later you can get fancy and change things however you > wish. Oh I think we all agree there... we just use the opportunity to discuss how we should improve the consolidation further :-) > You people giving comments like this have your priorities totally > screwed up and you are doing nothing but unnecessarily slowing down > this wonderful consolidation. Even worse you might even be giving > Stephen a disincentive to keep working actively on this. > > So please STOP THIS CRAP now, thanks. > > Everything so far is pure whining, and has nothing to do with > the substance of what Stephen is trying to accomplish, a > _CODE CONSOLIDATION_. So please don't get in the way of that > effort. Dave, no need to shout :-) I think it's pretty well agreed that Stephen's patches are good to go (unless nits I haven't seen), we are really just discussing what we should do on top of them. Now regarding the parsing of #address-cells / #size-cells, it's indeed a bug that we walk up the tree on powerpc, we did that initially, I think, due to a misunderstanding of the spec, but since the code's been doing that forever, nobody ever wanted to change it and take the risk to break it. At one point, I suppose we'll have to bit the bullet and do a patch going to the proper behaviour and see what breaks (probably nothing nowadays, except maybe some rare old apple mac-io stuffs that I need to double check) but that should definitely be done separately from the consolidation. Ben.