Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] arm: SoC model for Calxeda Highbank

[Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsdorf@calxeda.com>]

On 01/20/2012 10:27 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 20 January 2012 16:25, Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsdorf@calxeda.com> wrote:
>> On 01/20/2012 07:48 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On 01/20/2012 02:47 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>> On 19 January 2012 23:17, Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 01/19/2012 03:44 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>>> On 19 January 2012 21:31, Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsdorf@calxeda.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> +    highbank_binfo.board_id = 0xEC10100f; /* provided by deviceTree */
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where does this number come from? It's not in
>>>>>> http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is 3027 (==0xbd3) you?
>>>>>> http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/list.php?id=3027
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Much of the data there is wrong as none of it is used. 0 or -1 is the
>>>>> right value as those are obviously meaningless. A highbank kernel will
>>>>> never be booted without devicetree and in that case this number is
>>>>> irrelevant. This is the legacy boot interface and qemu really needs to
>>>>> learn to boot with a separate dtb.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but the documentation even for DTB boot says we should pass
>>>> in a machine number. If 0 or -1 are right then there should be
>>>> some documentation that says so. I'll accept "mailing list post
>>>> from some authoritative person [eg Grant Likely]" if necessary.
>>>
>>> Kernel DT co-maintainer is not authoritative enough for you?
>>
>> Peter, is that sufficient for me to send in the patch with a
>> board_id of -1? Thanks.
> 
> It's still not clear to me from this conversation if the right
> answer is "0", "-1" or "anything that's not a valid board ID
> and not -1 either"...

Quoting Rob from upthread:
"0 or -1 is the right value as those are obviously meaningless."

The original code that Rob wrote had a board_id of -1. That's
the right answer.

--Mark Langsdorf
Calxeda, Inc.