From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761903AbYDUTn4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:43:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755048AbYDUTns (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:43:48 -0400 Received: from mail.queued.net ([207.210.101.209]:2894 "EHLO mail.queued.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755028AbYDUTnr (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:43:47 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:46:18 -0400 From: Andres Salomon To: David Woodhouse Cc: Mitch Bradley , Yinghai Lu , "H. Peter Anvin" , "Eric W. Biederman" , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Joseph Fannin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jordan.crouse@amd.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] OLPC: Add support for calling into Open Firmware Message-ID: <20080421154618.2ed4978f@ephemeral> In-Reply-To: <1208805491.9212.520.camel@pmac.infradead.org> References: <20080418014757.52fb4a4f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080419031024.GC3503@nineveh.local> <20080418202925.b18452c5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080419092544.378664a8@ephemeral> <20080419133909.5aa6b63e@ephemeral> <86802c440804200334t5cdcd100rfc41e9b1bf379109@mail.gmail.com> <480C0582.9010509@firmworks.com> <86802c440804202015h2605eff7vc733874dd1f22261@mail.gmail.com> <480C1286.3040307@firmworks.com> <20080421102417.6de71391@ephemeral> <1208793253.9212.507.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20080421130320.38b5f505@ephemeral> <1208805491.9212.520.camel@pmac.infradead.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.10.0 (GTK+ 2.12.0; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:18:11 +0100 David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 13:03 -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > > Quite simply, it's a lot more work (*and* we have to play nice w/ > > sparc and ppc). > > It's only more work because we did it the wrong way in the first place. > If only someone had pointed it out at the time... :) > Yes, and if only we had an infinite number of kernel hackers who had time to work on such things, then we could've done things differently. > For interaction with device-tree properties in generic code, you should > be using the functions defined in . > At the time [the OFW interface] was written, linux/of.h didn't *exist*. > Creating the static device-tree before we quiesce OpenFirmware surely > shouldn't be so hard? Can't we cut and paste most of that code anyway? > We're not adding a device tree right now, we're adding a method for querying OFW for information. Eventually that information should be obtained from a device tree. However, that's going to take additional time, and I'd like to get rid of some of these patches that we've been carrying around. > > I had intended to eventually do it, but first I wanted > > to get this stuff in for 2.6.26 so that we could at least boot upstream > > kernels on XOs. > > Is it only the things in your second patch which need to be made to > work? One of them was already working, by grubbing around in the BIOS > directly -- so all we need is the board revision, isn't it? Can we get > that from the EC for now? > Well, no, it wasn't already working; that's the reason this whole thread started. It was crashing someone's machine. That's why the OFW interface, as imperfect as it is, is an _improvement_. -- Need a kernel or Debian developer? Contact me, I'm looking for contracts.