From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co1ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.187]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com", Issuer "Microsoft Secure Server Authority" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41CCAB6EE6 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 03:00:15 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <4FEDDF06.10006@freescale.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:59:50 -0500 From: Scott Wood MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Li Yang-R58472 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] powerpc/fsl: PCI refactoring and QEMU paravirt platform References: <20120627234851.GA9071@tyr.buserror.net> <412C8208B4A0464FA894C5F0C278CD5D01A10EAB@039-SN1MPN1-002.039d.mgd.msft.net> <4FEC86CC.90307@freescale.com> <412C8208B4A0464FA894C5F0C278CD5D01A13620@039-SN1MPN1-002.039d.mgd.msft.net> <34D617F2-54CD-46DA-A110-E44CE081B99B@kernel.crashing.org> <4FEDD15E.10706@freescale.com> <94F013E7935FF44C83EBE7784D62AD3F09348F0B@039-SN2MPN1-022.039d.mgd.msft.net> In-Reply-To: <94F013E7935FF44C83EBE7784D62AD3F09348F0B@039-SN2MPN1-022.039d.mgd.msft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Wood Scott-B07421 , "agraf@suse.de" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Jia Hongtao-B38951 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 06/29/2012 11:18 AM, Li Yang-R58472 wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- From: Wood Scott-B07421 Sent: Friday, >> June 29, 2012 11:02 AM To: Kumar Gala Cc: Jia Hongtao-B38951; Wood >> Scott-B07421; Li Yang-R58472; agraf@suse.de; >> linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] powerpc/fsl: >> PCI refactoring and QEMU paravirt platform >> >> On 06/29/2012 10:57 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: >>> Pretty sure the boards have ISA, if you see the .dts has >>> references to >> 'ISA bridge' & 'i8259' PIC. >> >> OK. How about looking for an i8259 node as well? > > That could work, but looks hackish. Our proposal for adding a new > device tree property is a generic solution. Yes, all *new* boards should have an isa node. But we want to remain compatible with existing device trees. > The only problem is that > new kernels would work with old device trees. I think we can use > your solution for transitional period. And go for a well defined > device tree binding for this in long run. The "transitional period" is until we no longer care about these specific boards, or any out-of-tree derivatives. -Scott