> So where have we gotten on this?
>
> It seems we are in agreement that:
> 1. reserve memory should be probably be described in nodes
> 2. it should be pulled out of the memory node and put at root level
> 3. Use reg to describe the memory regions for a given node
>
> Now to figure out about
So where have we gotten on this?
It seems we are in agreement that:
1. reserve memory should be probably be described in nodes
2. it should be pulled out of the memory node and put at root level
3. Use reg to describe the memory regions for a given node
Now to figure out about how to
On Sep 18, 2013, at 3:21 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 21:57 -0500, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>>> - It provides no indication of what a given region is used for (or used
>>> by). In the example, "display_region" is a label (thus information that
>>> is lost) and unless
On Sep 18, 2013, at 3:21 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 21:57 -0500, Grant Likely wrote:
- It provides no indication of what a given region is used for (or used
by). In the example, display_region is a label (thus information that
is lost) and unless it's
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:28:44AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 09/17/2013 03:15 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand
> > wrote:
> >> On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>
On 09/17/2013 03:15 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 21:57 -0500, Grant Likely wrote:
> > - It provides no indication of what a given region is used for (or used
> > by). In the example, "display_region" is a label (thus information that
> > is lost) and unless it's referenced by another node there is no good way
> > to know
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 18:38 -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:46:07 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> wrote:
> > In anycase, just "/memory" will break on at least powerpc.
>
> Ummm, really?
I meant the search for just '/memory' will break with the current path
searching
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:56:39 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Monday 16 of September 2013 15:48:22 Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> > > On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:17 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > >> On 09/15/2013 08:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:57:54 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> [resent to the right list this time around]
>
> Hi folks !
>
> So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
> just today noticed the crackpot that went into 3.11 as part of commit:
>
>
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:46:07 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> In anycase, just "/memory" will break on at least powerpc.
Ummm, really?
~/hacking/linux$ git grep 'memory {' arch/powerpc/boot/dts/* | wc -l
159
~/hacking/linux$ git grep 'memory@' arch/powerpc/boot/dts/* | wc -l
4
g.
--
To
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:46:07 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
In anycase, just /memory will break on at least powerpc.
Ummm, really?
~/hacking/linux$ git grep 'memory {' arch/powerpc/boot/dts/* | wc -l
159
~/hacking/linux$ git grep 'memory@' arch/powerpc/boot/dts/*
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:57:54 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
[resent to the right list this time around]
Hi folks !
So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
just today noticed the crackpot that went into 3.11 as part of commit:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:56:39 +0200, Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday 16 of September 2013 15:48:22 Olof Johansson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:17 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/15/2013 08:57 PM, Benjamin
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 18:38 -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:46:07 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
In anycase, just /memory will break on at least powerpc.
Ummm, really?
I meant the search for just '/memory' will break with the current path
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 21:57 -0500, Grant Likely wrote:
- It provides no indication of what a given region is used for (or used
by). In the example, display_region is a label (thus information that
is lost) and unless it's referenced by another node there is no good way
to know what this
On 09/17/2013 03:15 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:28:44AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/17/2013 03:15 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand frowand.l...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:08:33PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >> I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what
> >> Ben said. Please see ePAPR chapter
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 14:33 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> > I don't think it's broken, why do you think so? It's at least
>> consistent.
>> > Probably not perfect and not complete, but IMHO a reasonable base
>> for
>> > further
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 14:33 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > I don't think it's broken, why do you think so? It's at least
> consistent.
> > Probably not perfect and not complete, but IMHO a reasonable base
> for
> > further work. (Also at least something written down that people can
> learn
> >
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 of September 2013 14:15:52 Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand
> wrote:
>> > On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 14:15 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Sigh, that's horrible. OF clearly doesn't require it.
Doesn't it ?
All OF implementations will create it, you would have to explicitly
remove the encode-unit method of the parent to make it disappear...
All I can find in 1275 is:
<<
On Tuesday 17 of September 2013 14:15:52 Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand
wrote:
> > On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >>> I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what
>>> Ben said. Please see ePAPR chapter 2.2.1.1, which
On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what
>> Ben said. Please see ePAPR chapter 2.2.1.1, which clearly defines how
>> nodes should be named.
>
> 2.2.1.1
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what
> Ben said. Please see ePAPR chapter 2.2.1.1, which clearly defines how
> nodes should be named.
2.2.1.1 is there to point out that unit address _has_ to
On Sep 16, 2013, at 5:42 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:22 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> Where is Jermey's binding documented ?
>
> It looks like I actually came up with this binding :-) Jeremy reminded
> me yesterday. It was posted to the DT list a while back,
On Monday 16 of September 2013 15:48:22 Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:17 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 09/15/2013 08:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >> > [resent to the right list this time
On Monday 16 of September 2013 15:48:22 Olof Johansson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:17 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/15/2013 08:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
[resent to the right list
On Sep 16, 2013, at 5:42 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:22 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
Where is Jermey's binding documented ?
It looks like I actually came up with this binding :-) Jeremy reminded
me yesterday. It was posted to the DT list a while back, arguably we
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what
Ben said. Please see ePAPR chapter 2.2.1.1, which clearly defines how
nodes should be named.
2.2.1.1 is there to point out that unit address _has_ to reflect
On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what
Ben said. Please see ePAPR chapter 2.2.1.1, which clearly defines how
nodes should be named.
2.2.1.1 is there
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what
Ben said. Please see ePAPR chapter
On Tuesday 17 of September 2013 14:15:52 Olof Johansson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand frowand.l...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I'm afraid that I must disagree. For
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 14:15 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
Sigh, that's horrible. OF clearly doesn't require it.
Doesn't it ?
All OF implementations will create it, you would have to explicitly
remove the encode-unit method of the parent to make it disappear...
All I can find in 1275 is:
Some
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday 17 of September 2013 14:15:52 Olof Johansson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand frowand.l...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 14:33 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
I don't think it's broken, why do you think so? It's at least
consistent.
Probably not perfect and not complete, but IMHO a reasonable base
for
further work. (Also at least something written down that people can
learn
from and/or
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 14:33 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
I don't think it's broken, why do you think so? It's at least
consistent.
Probably not perfect and not complete, but IMHO a reasonable base
for
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:08:33PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what
Ben said. Please see ePAPR chapter 2.2.1.1, which
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 16:48 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 15:48 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> > A node that has a "reg" property should have the corresponding unit
> >> > address.
> >>
> >> No,
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 15:48 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> > A node that has a "reg" property should have the corresponding unit
>> > address.
>>
>> No, absolutely _NOT_ a requirement. Unit address is only required if
>> needed to
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 15:48 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > A node that has a "reg" property should have the corresponding unit
> > address.
>
> No, absolutely _NOT_ a requirement. Unit address is only required if
> needed to disambiguate two properties with the same name.
>
> If there are no
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:17 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 09/15/2013 08:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> > [resent to the right list this time around]
>> >
>> > Hi folks !
>> >
>> > So I don't have the bandwidth to
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:17 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 09/15/2013 08:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > [resent to the right list this time around]
> >
> > Hi folks !
> >
> > So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
> > just today noticed the crackpot
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:22 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Where is Jermey's binding documented ?
It looks like I actually came up with this binding :-) Jeremy reminded
me yesterday. It was posted to the DT list a while back, arguably we
should have merged it.
> Is there concern of "breaking"
On 09/15/2013 08:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> [resent to the right list this time around]
>
> Hi folks !
>
> So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
> just today noticed the crackpot that went into 3.11 as part of commit:
>
>
On Sep 15, 2013, at 9:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> [resent to the right list this time around]
>
> Hi folks !
>
> So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
> just today noticed the crackpot that went into 3.11 as part of commit:
>
>
On Sep 15, 2013, at 9:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
[resent to the right list this time around]
Hi folks !
So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
just today noticed the crackpot that went into 3.11 as part of commit:
On 09/15/2013 08:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
[resent to the right list this time around]
Hi folks !
So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
just today noticed the crackpot that went into 3.11 as part of commit:
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:22 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
Where is Jermey's binding documented ?
It looks like I actually came up with this binding :-) Jeremy reminded
me yesterday. It was posted to the DT list a while back, arguably we
should have merged it.
Is there concern of breaking whatever
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:17 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/15/2013 08:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
[resent to the right list this time around]
Hi folks !
So I don't have the bandwidth to
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:17 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/15/2013 08:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
[resent to the right list this time around]
Hi folks !
So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
just today noticed the crackpot that went into
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 15:48 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
A node that has a reg property should have the corresponding unit
address.
No, absolutely _NOT_ a requirement. Unit address is only required if
needed to disambiguate two properties with the same name.
If there are no ambiguities,
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 15:48 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
A node that has a reg property should have the corresponding unit
address.
No, absolutely _NOT_ a requirement. Unit address is only required if
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 16:48 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 15:48 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
A node that has a reg property should have the corresponding unit
address.
No,
[resent to the right list this time around]
Hi folks !
So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
just today noticed the crackpot that went into 3.11 as part of commit:
9d8eab7af79cb4ce2de5de39f82c455b1f796963
drivers: of: add initialization code for dma reserved
Hi folks !
So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
just today noticed the crackpot that went into 3.11 as part of commit:
9d8eab7af79cb4ce2de5de39f82c455b1f796963
drivers: of: add initialization code for dma reserved memory
Fist of all, do NOT add (or change) a
Hi folks !
So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
just today noticed the crackpot that went into 3.11 as part of commit:
9d8eab7af79cb4ce2de5de39f82c455b1f796963
drivers: of: add initialization code for dma reserved memory
Fist of all, do NOT add (or change) a
[resent to the right list this time around]
Hi folks !
So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
just today noticed the crackpot that went into 3.11 as part of commit:
9d8eab7af79cb4ce2de5de39f82c455b1f796963
drivers: of: add initialization code for dma reserved
60 matches
Mail list logo
