From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com (gateway-1237.mvista.com [63.81.120.158]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7411067B79 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:19:57 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:20:42 -0700 From: "Mark A. Greer" To: Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [PATCH] Start arch/powerpc/boot code reorganization Message-ID: <20060920012042.GA28489@mag.az.mvista.com> References: <17680.30367.157642.674242@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <17680.30367.157642.674242@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Paul, Regarding our earlier conversation about ft_translate_addr and ft_parentize. I just realized that on IRC today Matt Porter pointed out that using the "reg" property in ns16550.c is wrong. We--several of us on #mklinux--decided that the "address" property is the correct thing to use because we should really be using a virtual address from the fw (bootwrapper has no ioremap). So, unless someone objects, we'll all add the "address" property to our uart device nodes in our fdt's (if they can be used as the console). A couple consequences, if that happens: - It removes the requirement for ft_translate_addr (and dt_ops.translate_addr) in the bootwrapper. That cleans up flatdevtree_misc.c a lot. - Since ft_find_node/device will be the only caller of ft_parentize now, that may change your plans for ft_parentize. Do you have any objections to using "address" property instead of "reg"? Mark