From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:38:47 +1100 From: David Gibson To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: GPIO - marking individual pins (not) available in device tree Message-ID: <20081028003847.GF26424@yookeroo.seuss> References: <49024646.3050300@genesi-usa.com> <49025DE0.6070403@firmworks.com> <4904DD76.7070706@genesi-usa.com> <20081026235303.GE22339@yookeroo.seuss> <4905E857.6040206@genesi-usa.com> <4905EDBE.8020105@freescale.com> <4905F4C4.4000309@genesi-usa.com> <4905F97B.60705@freescale.com> <4905FF2B.10007@genesi-usa.com> <49060047.2010809@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <49060047.2010809@freescale.com> Cc: devicetree-discuss list , linuxppc-dev list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:54:15PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > Matt Sealey wrote: >> Scott Wood wrote: >>> It's deprecated *in the context of flat device trees*. Anything not >>> using flat device trees is out-of-scope with respect to ePAPR. >> >> Isn't the beauty of a device tree that every firmware no matter what >> type can present it in whatever form it chooses, but still be describing >> the same hardware in the same way? > > When run-time services are not involved, yes. device_type was used by > 1275 in the context of run-time services, which we don't have, so we > didn't copy that property over (except for memory and cpu, to avoid > gratuitous divergence). > >> I'm curious, is it the remit of the ePAPR TSC to publish and act as >> a registration authority for device tree bindings for specific SoCs >> or is that devolved to the SoC maker itself (be they a member of >> Power.org or not) and, more prudent, two other questions; where are >> Freescale and IBM publishing these if it is their responsibility, >> are things like the mysterious i2c binding going to be published >> under this TSC? > > There has been talk about setting up such a repository, but I'm not sure > what the status of it is. Progressing intermittently when people get small packets of time to actually do something about it. We do really want this, it's just no-one's yet had the spare cycles to make it happen. At the moment things are published in the kernel documentation (booting-without-of.txt, although I think it's now been split up into multiple files), which is far from ideal, but better than nothing. -- 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