On 20 January 2012 16:25, Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsd...@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.herr...@calxeda.com> wrote: >>>> On 01/19/2012 03:44 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>>> On 19 January 2012 21:31, Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsd...@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"... -- PMM
