From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
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 ESMTPS id C0A35DDEF1
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Tue, 12 May 2009 08:33:51 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix sata_sil compilation on non-DMI platforms
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20090511194410.46641214@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
References: <200905062009.28087.markos@codex.gr> <4A086A76.3090008@garzik.org>
	<20090511194410.46641214@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:31:44 +1000
Message-Id: <1242081104.304.12.camel@pasglop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
	Konstantinos Margaritis <markos@codex.gr>,
	linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, rmk@arm.linux.org.uk,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@wantstofly.org>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 19:44 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Ideally the DMI subsystem should be provided wrappers for platforms 
> > without DMI, rendering patches like this unnecessary.
> 
> Interesting question - is the PPC OpenFirmware machine information
> mappable onto the DMI space ? or the various static bits of name
> information in the various ARM and the like machine descriptions.
> 
> If not which bits are similar enough we could replace dmi at the high
> level with an abstract interface for system/vendor/... that was ?

The one thing we could try to map would be the device-tree "compatible"
property which would contain vendor,system tuples from more specific to
more generic with which the machine is compatible with.

Of course I would argue the other way around and create a device-tree
from the DMI data :-)

Cheers,
Ben.