On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 08:14:57PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > > How does everyone feel abot unions? > > Bad. I dont think we need them. (Well if we did, it would be an > idea)
Agreed, if no need then no reason. > I think what we want is a generic MC structure. Yes, this sounds good. > BUT we also want a platform specific sysinfo structure. What would it hold? Is it the initial device tree in code? > And sysinfo is what we want to pass there, not MC. I think the > object model is wrong at the moment. Quite possible. I'm not sure how things are right now, just what I think I'd like: A device tree (not list) in code that * is seeded by the mainboard dts, which lists all devices * has device options set from defaults in device dts * has device option overrides from mainboard dts * has device option overrides from Kconfig * can be translated to (if it isn't already) a device tree for consumption by the kernel Sorry if you've already had to get me to drop this once, but it's the nice and neat structure that I imagined at the symposium when we started talking about dts and so on. Is my thinking wrong? > > Also, can there be more than one MC on a northbridge? > > In theory. But the meminit code would know that. No need to define > it every time. How would it know? I think the tree should have several ctrl nodes - one per MC. Right? //Peter -- linuxbios mailing list [email protected] http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
