From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mackerras MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <15531.32246.283097.469203@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 08:11:02 +1000 (EST) To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Cc: Troy Benjegerdes , , Subject: Re: GT64260 merge warning In-Reply-To: <20020402221544.21559@mailhost.mipsys.com> References: <15530.40918.517084.226235@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20020402221544.21559@mailhost.mipsys.com> Reply-To: paulus@samba.org Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: benh@kernel.crashing.org writes: > I'm almost done with the new bi_rec stuffs, I'll push it to _2_5 > this week as soon as I've tested a bit. Interesting... I hope we're not going to end up with a lot of extra complexity for not very much gain, though. If we are going to have a more complex bi_rec setup, let's make sure that it is capable of expressing a complete device tree. If not then I would prefer to see a minimal amount of extra complexity. In other words I think there are 2 tenable positions: the minimal one, which just adds a BI_MAC_ADDR and maybe a BI_GT64260_ADDR tag to the existing list of tags (and makes no change to the bi_rec structure), and a full-featured one which allows for a tree of device records with each device having a list of properties, each with a string name and arbitrary binary data. Paul. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/