From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 10:18:08 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] Document the fsl, magic-packet property in gianfar nodes. Message-ID: <20070508001808.GD7449@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070507182947.GD26920@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <463F9A38.6080408@freescale.com> <3FE06AFA-BEE6-46CF-B12C-29D979AE50D7@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3FE06AFA-BEE6-46CF-B12C-29D979AE50D7@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 06:06:39PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On May 7, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Andy Fleming wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 2007, at 16:29, Scott Wood wrote: > > > >> Andy Fleming wrote: > >>> On May 7, 2007, at 13:29, Scott Wood wrote: > >>>> + Optional properties: > >>>> + - fsl,magic-packet : Indicates that this device supports wake > >>>> + on Magic Packet. > >>>> + > >>> Isn't this a fairly generic option? Does it need the "fsl" > >>> qualifier? > >> > >> As I previously wrote internally, it's only needed because some > >> versions of the device have it and some don't; what it really means > >> is that certain bits in certain registers are valid. Making it > >> generic would imply that all hardware that can do magic packet > >> should have it, which isn't true. > > > > > > Yeah, I just read that. You should either make that more explicit in > > the documentation, or make it generic. It's fine if there are > > drivers/devices that don't need to be told or tell anyone that they > > recognize magic packets for them to work. The lack of the property > > in other controllers won't break anything. > > > > But I'm fine if you just document that the bit indicates, > > specifically, the presence of magic-packet bits in certain registers > > on the eTSEC. > > I'd ask is it really freescale specific? In that I'd assume its > support for the standard wake-on-lan packet. Further, is there already a standard description for WoL capability described in one of the OF binding documents. Segher? -- 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