From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-in-06.arcor-online.net (mail-in-06.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx.arcor.de", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59385DDF1F for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:03:42 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1177459651.14873.164.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070424223245.78f4fdfb.sfr@canb.auug_.org.au> <20070424.110456.124867547.davem@davemloft.net> <1177459651.14873.164.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Start split out of common open firmware code Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 03:03:31 +0200 To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, David Miller , sfr@canb.auug.org.au List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Dave, no need to shout :-) I think it's pretty well agreed that > Stephen's patches are good to go (unless nits I haven't seen), we are > really just discussing what we should do on top of them. Yes. And I dare say that we should agree that certain fixes *should* go on top or this consolidation shouldn't happen at all -- at least not as a consolidation to a "generic" OF layer. For example, the OLPC device tree / OF kernel efforts would be dead in the water if we cannot have a *proper* "#address-cells" parser. Again, I have *nothing* against Stephen's patches, I find them quite nice actually. It's just that if this stuff gets moved to a "for all archs" layer, some "design qualms" need to be cleared up; either that, or we'll end up with the OF analogue to an MSI layer that only ever can work on intel compatible platforms. Segher