* Refactor booting-without-of.txt
@ 2007-10-15 16:08 Grant Likely
2007-10-15 16:55 ` Olof Johansson
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2007-10-15 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-dev, microblaze-uclinux
Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to
booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus
with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc &
microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only
(the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category).
Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings
out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory?
Perhaps something like this; each file contains common bindings for
the type of device and device specific properties:
Documentation/of/
Documentation/of/README - Description of the purpose and layout of
this directory
Documentation/of/net.txt - network device bindings (eth, MDIO, phy, etc)
Documentation/of/serial.txt - serial device bindings
Documentation/of/misc.txt - anything that doesn't fit anywhere else yet.
Documentation/of/soc/* - System on chip stuff that doesn't fit will
into established device types; possibly a separate file for each chip.
Documentation/of/usb.txt - usb blah blah blah
Documentation/of/whatever - you get the picture.
Thoughts?
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
grant.likely@secretlab.ca
(403) 399-0195
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: Refactor booting-without-of.txt 2007-10-15 16:08 Refactor booting-without-of.txt Grant Likely @ 2007-10-15 16:55 ` Olof Johansson 2007-10-15 17:14 ` Grant Likely 2007-10-16 17:13 ` Stephen Neuendorffer 2007-10-31 15:44 ` Yoder Stuart-B08248 2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Olof Johansson @ 2007-10-15 16:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Grant Likely; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, microblaze-uclinux On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to > booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus > with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc & > microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only > (the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category). > > Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings > out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory? The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people would like it to be, not open firmware, nor is it the same as their bindings. So I think we'd be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to associate them together. All it would take is a rename of the directory, unfortunately i don't have any suggestions on better names though. > Perhaps something like this; each file contains common bindings for > the type of device and device specific properties: > > Documentation/of/ > Documentation/of/README - Description of the purpose and layout of > this directory > Documentation/of/net.txt - network device bindings (eth, MDIO, phy, etc) > Documentation/of/serial.txt - serial device bindings > Documentation/of/misc.txt - anything that doesn't fit anywhere else yet. > Documentation/of/soc/* - System on chip stuff that doesn't fit will > into established device types; possibly a separate file for each chip. > Documentation/of/usb.txt - usb blah blah blah > Documentation/of/whatever - you get the picture. > > Thoughts? Looks reasonable. The other way to cut it would be to slice along vendor boundaries, but I think I like the functional partitioning you suggested better. -Olof ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Refactor booting-without-of.txt 2007-10-15 16:55 ` Olof Johansson @ 2007-10-15 17:14 ` Grant Likely 2007-10-15 17:40 ` Olof Johansson 2007-10-16 2:38 ` David Gibson 0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Grant Likely @ 2007-10-15 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Olof Johansson; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, microblaze-uclinux On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to > > booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus > > with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc & > > microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only > > (the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category). > > > > Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings > > out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory? > > The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people would like it to be, > not open firmware, nor is it the same as their bindings. So I think we'd > be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to associate them together. > All it would take is a rename of the directory, unfortunately i don't > have any suggestions on better names though. I think I need to stick with the of prefix. All the support API in include/linux/of_* is prefixed with "of_" already, so convention is established. How about Documentation/of-device-tree? > > > Perhaps something like this; each file contains common bindings for > > the type of device and device specific properties: > > > > Documentation/of/ > > Documentation/of/README - Description of the purpose and layout of > > this directory > > Documentation/of/net.txt - network device bindings (eth, MDIO, phy, etc) > > Documentation/of/serial.txt - serial device bindings > > Documentation/of/misc.txt - anything that doesn't fit anywhere else yet. > > Documentation/of/soc/* - System on chip stuff that doesn't fit will > > into established device types; possibly a separate file for each chip. > > Documentation/of/usb.txt - usb blah blah blah > > Documentation/of/whatever - you get the picture. > > > > Thoughts? > > Looks reasonable. The other way to cut it would be to slice along vendor > boundaries, but I think I like the functional partitioning you suggested > better. I think vendor partitioning makes sense for non-common devices that don't easily fit into a particular mold (soc glue nodes come to mind). Other than that, the functional partitioning lets us start with defining common property usage for a given device type and follow up with device specific properties. Thanks for the feedback, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. grant.likely@secretlab.ca (403) 399-0195 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Refactor booting-without-of.txt 2007-10-15 17:14 ` Grant Likely @ 2007-10-15 17:40 ` Olof Johansson 2007-10-16 2:38 ` David Gibson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Olof Johansson @ 2007-10-15 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Grant Likely; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, microblaze-uclinux Hi, On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > > > > The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people would like it to be, > > not open firmware, nor is it the same as their bindings. So I think we'd > > be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to associate them together. > > All it would take is a rename of the directory, unfortunately i don't > > have any suggestions on better names though. > > I think I need to stick with the of prefix. All the support API in > include/linux/of_* is prefixed with "of_" already, so convention is > established. > > How about Documentation/of-device-tree? Sounds good to me, even though it doesn't really address the original OF separation comment. :) Maybe it's enough to document the difference between the linux-specific flat device tree bindings and classic 1275-style bindings in the top readme in that directory. Either way, it's not worth arguing over, your suggestion is good enough. > > Looks reasonable. The other way to cut it would be to slice along vendor > > boundaries, but I think I like the functional partitioning you suggested > > better. > > I think vendor partitioning makes sense for non-common devices that > don't easily fit into a particular mold (soc glue nodes come to mind). > Other than that, the functional partitioning > lets us start with defining common property usage for a given device > type and follow up with device specific properties. Yep, it could always be added down the road in case it's needed. -Olof ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Refactor booting-without-of.txt 2007-10-15 17:14 ` Grant Likely 2007-10-15 17:40 ` Olof Johansson @ 2007-10-16 2:38 ` David Gibson 2007-10-16 3:02 ` Grant Likely 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: David Gibson @ 2007-10-16 2:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Grant Likely; +Cc: Olof Johansson, linuxppc-dev, microblaze-uclinux On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > > Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to > > > booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus > > > with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc & > > > microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only > > > (the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category). > > > > > > Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings > > > out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory? > > > > The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people would like it to be, > > not open firmware, nor is it the same as their bindings. So I think we'd > > be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to associate them together. > > All it would take is a rename of the directory, unfortunately i don't > > have any suggestions on better names though. > > I think I need to stick with the of prefix. All the support API in > include/linux/of_* is prefixed with "of_" already, so convention is > established. > > How about Documentation/of-device-tree? It seems a little counterintuitive to change names from "booting *without* of" to "of *"... -- 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Refactor booting-without-of.txt 2007-10-16 2:38 ` David Gibson @ 2007-10-16 3:02 ` Grant Likely 2007-10-16 3:24 ` David Gibson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Grant Likely @ 2007-10-16 3:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Grant Likely, Olof Johansson, linuxppc-dev, microblaze-uclinux On 10/15/07, David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > > > Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to > > > > booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus > > > > with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc & > > > > microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only > > > > (the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category). > > > > > > > > Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings > > > > out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory? > > > > > > The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people would like it to be, > > > not open firmware, nor is it the same as their bindings. So I think we'd > > > be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to associate them together. > > > All it would take is a rename of the directory, unfortunately i don't > > > have any suggestions on better names though. > > > > I think I need to stick with the of prefix. All the support API in > > include/linux/of_* is prefixed with "of_" already, so convention is > > established. > > > > How about Documentation/of-device-tree? > > It seems a little counterintuitive to change names from "booting > *without* of" to "of *"... Heh; true. The *only* reason I think it should be 'of-<anything>' is because *all* the support APIs are named that way. I'll happily use another name if I get the impression that most of us in our little group think it should be something else. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. grant.likely@secretlab.ca (403) 399-0195 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Refactor booting-without-of.txt 2007-10-16 3:02 ` Grant Likely @ 2007-10-16 3:24 ` David Gibson 2007-10-16 17:24 ` Stephen Neuendorffer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: David Gibson @ 2007-10-16 3:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Grant Likely; +Cc: Olof Johansson, linuxppc-dev, microblaze-uclinux On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 09:02:09PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On 10/15/07, David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > > On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > > > > Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to > > > > > booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus > > > > > with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc & > > > > > microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only > > > > > (the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category). > > > > > > > > > > Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings > > > > > out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory? > > > > > > > > The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people would like it to be, > > > > not open firmware, nor is it the same as their bindings. So I think we'd > > > > be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to associate them together. > > > > All it would take is a rename of the directory, unfortunately i don't > > > > have any suggestions on better names though. > > > > > > I think I need to stick with the of prefix. All the support API in > > > include/linux/of_* is prefixed with "of_" already, so convention is > > > established. > > > > > > How about Documentation/of-device-tree? > > > > It seems a little counterintuitive to change names from "booting > > *without* of" to "of *"... > > Heh; true. The *only* reason I think it should be 'of-<anything>' is > because *all* the support APIs are named that way. I'll happily use No, not all, just most... And do bear in mind that a lot of those accessor functions are at least valid both on of and flat-tree systems. > another name if I get the impression that most of us in our little > group think it should be something else. > > Cheers, > g. > > -- 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* RE: Refactor booting-without-of.txt 2007-10-16 3:24 ` David Gibson @ 2007-10-16 17:24 ` Stephen Neuendorffer 2007-10-16 19:39 ` Grant Likely 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Stephen Neuendorffer @ 2007-10-16 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Gibson, Grant Likely Cc: Olof Johansson, linuxppc-dev, microblaze-uclinux =20 > -----Original Message----- > From:=20 > linuxppc-dev-bounces+stephen.neuendorffer=3Dxilinx.com@ozlabs.or > g=20 > [mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+stephen.neuendorffer=3Dxilinx.com@o zlabs.org] On Behalf Of David Gibson > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 8:24 PM > To: Grant Likely > Cc: Olof Johansson; linuxppc-dev; microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au > Subject: Re: Refactor booting-without-of.txt >=20 > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 09:02:09PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > On 10/15/07, David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 11:14:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > > > On 10/15/07, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:08:44AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > > > > > Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to > > > > > > booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little=20 > unwieldy. Plus > > > > > > with more than one arch using the device tree=20 > (powerpc, sparc & > > > > > > microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't=20 > necessarily powerpc only > > > > > > (the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category). > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone have comments about splitting the expected=20 > device tree bindings > > > > > > out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory? > > > > > > > > > > The flat device tree is, in spite of what some people=20 > would like it to be, > > > > > not open firmware, nor is it the same as their=20 > bindings. So I think we'd > > > > > be doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to=20 > associate them together. > > > > > All it would take is a rename of the directory,=20 > unfortunately i don't > > > > > have any suggestions on better names though. > > > > > > > > I think I need to stick with the of prefix. All the=20 > support API in > > > > include/linux/of_* is prefixed with "of_" already, so=20 > convention is > > > > established. > > > > > > > > How about Documentation/of-device-tree? > > > > > > It seems a little counterintuitive to change names from "booting > > > *without* of" to "of *"... > >=20 > > Heh; true. The *only* reason I think it should be=20 > 'of-<anything>' is > > because *all* the support APIs are named that way. I'll happily use >=20 > No, not all, just most... >=20 > And do bear in mind that a lot of those accessor functions are at > least valid both on of and flat-tree systems. >=20 > > another name if I get the impression that most of us in our little > > group think it should be something else. > >=20 > > Cheers, > > g. > >=20 > >=20 > How about just 'device-tree', referring to any source, and then of-device-tree and flat-device-tree to document how the device tree is constructed. The fact that the API is poorly named is something that can always be fixed (and perhaps should be earlier rather than later). Steve ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Refactor booting-without-of.txt 2007-10-16 17:24 ` Stephen Neuendorffer @ 2007-10-16 19:39 ` Grant Likely 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Grant Likely @ 2007-10-16 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Neuendorffer Cc: Olof Johansson, linuxppc-dev, microblaze-uclinux, David Gibson On 10/16/07, Stephen Neuendorffer <stephen.neuendorffer@xilinx.com> wrote: > How about just 'device-tree', referring to any source, and then > of-device-tree and flat-device-tree to document how the device tree is > constructed. > The fact that the API is poorly named is something that can always be > fixed (and perhaps should be earlier rather than later). It's not so much that it's poorly named; it's just historically named. :-) g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. grant.likely@secretlab.ca (403) 399-0195 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* RE: Refactor booting-without-of.txt 2007-10-15 16:08 Refactor booting-without-of.txt Grant Likely 2007-10-15 16:55 ` Olof Johansson @ 2007-10-16 17:13 ` Stephen Neuendorffer 2007-10-16 17:17 ` Grant Likely 2007-10-31 15:44 ` Yoder Stuart-B08248 2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Stephen Neuendorffer @ 2007-10-16 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Grant Likely, linuxppc-dev, microblaze-uclinux On a similar note, is there interest in actually factoring the device tree code out from the different architectures into a common codebase? Steve=20 > -----Original Message----- > From:=20 > linuxppc-dev-bounces+stephen.neuendorffer=3Dxilinx.com@ozlabs.or > g=20 > [mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+stephen.neuendorffer=3Dxilinx.com@o zlabs.org] On Behalf Of Grant Likely > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 9:09 AM > To: linuxppc-dev; microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au > Subject: Refactor booting-without-of.txt >=20 > Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to > booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus > with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc & > microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only > (the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category). >=20 > Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings > out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory? >=20 > Perhaps something like this; each file contains common bindings for > the type of device and device specific properties: >=20 > Documentation/of/ > Documentation/of/README - Description of the purpose and layout of > this directory > Documentation/of/net.txt - network device bindings (eth,=20 > MDIO, phy, etc) > Documentation/of/serial.txt - serial device bindings > Documentation/of/misc.txt - anything that doesn't fit=20 > anywhere else yet. > Documentation/of/soc/* - System on chip stuff that doesn't fit will > into established device types; possibly a separate file for each chip. > Documentation/of/usb.txt - usb blah blah blah > Documentation/of/whatever - you get the picture. >=20 > Thoughts? > g. >=20 > --=20 > Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. > Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. > grant.likely@secretlab.ca > (403) 399-0195 > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org > https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev >=20 >=20 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Refactor booting-without-of.txt 2007-10-16 17:13 ` Stephen Neuendorffer @ 2007-10-16 17:17 ` Grant Likely 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Grant Likely @ 2007-10-16 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Neuendorffer; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, microblaze-uclinux On 10/16/07, Stephen Neuendorffer <stephen.neuendorffer@xilinx.com> wrote: > On a similar note, is there interest in actually factoring the device > tree code out from the different architectures into a common codebase? It's already happened somewhat. (Look in drivers/of and include/linux/of*.h) However, I don't think any of the stuff specific to flattened device trees is being factored out of arch/powerpc yet. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. grant.likely@secretlab.ca (403) 399-0195 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* RE: Refactor booting-without-of.txt 2007-10-15 16:08 Refactor booting-without-of.txt Grant Likely 2007-10-15 16:55 ` Olof Johansson 2007-10-16 17:13 ` Stephen Neuendorffer @ 2007-10-31 15:44 ` Yoder Stuart-B08248 2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Yoder Stuart-B08248 @ 2007-10-31 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Grant Likely, linuxppc-dev, microblaze-uclinux =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: linuxppc-dev-bounces+b08248=3Dfreescale.com@ozlabs.org=20 > [mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+b08248=3Dfreescale.com@ozlabs.org]=20 > On Behalf Of Grant Likely > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 11:09 AM > To: linuxppc-dev; microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au > Subject: Refactor booting-without-of.txt >=20 > Adding the Linux expected device tree bindings to > booting-without-of.txt seems to be getting a little unwieldy. Plus > with more than one arch using the device tree (powerpc, sparc & > microblaze) the device tree bindings aren't necessarily powerpc only > (the Xilinx devices certainly fall in this category). >=20 > Anyone have comments about splitting the expected device tree bindings > out of booting-without-of.txt into a separate directory? >=20 > Perhaps something like this; each file contains common bindings for > the type of device and device specific properties: >=20 > Documentation/of/ > Documentation/of/README - Description of the purpose and layout of > this directory > Documentation/of/net.txt - network device bindings (eth,=20 > MDIO, phy, etc) > Documentation/of/serial.txt - serial device bindings > Documentation/of/misc.txt - anything that doesn't fit=20 > anywhere else yet. > Documentation/of/soc/* - System on chip stuff that doesn't fit will > into established device types; possibly a separate file for each chip. > Documentation/of/usb.txt - usb blah blah blah > Documentation/of/whatever - you get the picture. >=20 I agree in principle with what your are proposing. One other thing to consider-- as has been publicly=20 announced in several forums, a committee in power.org (including several folks on this thread) is working on a standard called the ePAPR which in general is attempting to standardize the base set of requirements and boot conventions that apply to the flat device tree. There will not be much device specific stuff to=20 start with. The ePAPR document is actually quite far a long and is well beyond the 'idea' stage. The one point is that we hope that the device tree with be useful for other embedded OSes beyond Linux. So long term, I think this documentation should be pulled out of the kernel source and put on a public wiki that is not tied directly to Linux. What you are proposing is a good start... Stuart ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-10-31 15:44 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2007-10-15 16:08 Refactor booting-without-of.txt Grant Likely 2007-10-15 16:55 ` Olof Johansson 2007-10-15 17:14 ` Grant Likely 2007-10-15 17:40 ` Olof Johansson 2007-10-16 2:38 ` David Gibson 2007-10-16 3:02 ` Grant Likely 2007-10-16 3:24 ` David Gibson 2007-10-16 17:24 ` Stephen Neuendorffer 2007-10-16 19:39 ` Grant Likely 2007-10-16 17:13 ` Stephen Neuendorffer 2007-10-16 17:17 ` Grant Likely 2007-10-31 15:44 ` Yoder Stuart-B08248
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).