From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:14:22 -0700 From: "Mark A. Greer" To: Tom Rini Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] bootwrapper: Add support for the DINK firmware Message-ID: <20060802181422.GG17652@mag.az.mvista.com> References: <20060719231421.GF3887@mag.az.mvista.com> <20060802161934.GI3075@smtp.west.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20060802161934.GI3075@smtp.west.cox.net> Cc: linuxppc-dev List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 09:19:34AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 04:14:21PM -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote: > > > This patch adds the firmware operations that support the DINK firmware > > from Freescale. > > This isn't really DINK support (which would mean actually talking > back/with DINK, You seem to be thinking that this is the final, end-all solution to everything. It isn't. Its a step in the direction that we are trying go (IIUC). dink.c is about the easiest one there will be. of.c has a slightly more complicated fw_ops. We still need to figure out what uboot needs and what PIBS needs and what... As things are added, it'll evolve. > parsing the infos that it does pass along, and it does, > iirc, Not that I know of. > but I don't recall if it's at all ever correct / useful :)) but > just a, um, I suck at naming things (see arch/ppc/boot/simple) but > non-nonsense, no help 'firmware' ops. Please think up a name that > doesn't suck (as a name I would come up with would). Thanks! Guess I suck too b/c I can't think of anything better. As things evolve, fw_ops may go away all together. The problem is, I'm not exactly sure where we're going to end up so this is the best that I can do with the info that I have. Mark