From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:32:18 +1100 From: David Gibson To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/16] Add device tree for Ebony Message-ID: <20070214233218.GG16279@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070213060904.GA6214@localhost.localdomain> <20070213061026.5837FDDDE9@ozlabs.org> <9696D7A991D0824DBA8DFAC74A9C5FA302A1B705@az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net> <1171470754.4003.101.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <6206de08b7f12175bebe669291c66334@kernel.crashing.org> <9696D7A991D0824DBA8DFAC74A9C5FA302A1B86F@az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net> <9df9bf3adf511f4c1a7945e022fdd447@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <9df9bf3adf511f4c1a7945e022fdd447@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Yoder Stuart-B08248 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:12:18PM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote: [snip] > The device_type represents the programming model of the > device (programming model for OF). Each type of bus has > its own programming model. Your suggestion makes sense > for bus bridges that are 100% transparent -- same address > domain on both sides, completely identical ordering rules, > no configuration whatsoever. I've never seen such a bus. With that I think you convinced me to use separate device_type values for each of the internal busses: if we had one of these with an actual OF client interface, it's quite possible they would need different OF interface models (for, e.g., changing the arbitration settings for the OPB). -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson