Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 23:13 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
We use that to suck the device-tree, which we flatten, and then
re-enter
the kernel with the "common" entry interface.
I don't think I want to do the same on ARM. I'd rather have the
pr
On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 23:13 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > We use that to suck the device-tree, which we flatten, and then
> re-enter
> > the kernel with the "common" entry interface.
>
> I don't think I want to do the same on ARM. I'd rather have the
> prom_init stuff in a boot wrapper, or have
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Stephan Gatzka wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
>> I've been doing a bit of work on some introductory level documentation
>> of the flattened device tree. I've got a rough copy up on the
>> devicetree.org wiki, and I could use some feedback. If anyone has
>> some time to lo
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> hi Ben,
>
>> Maybe a paragraph on the new proposed clock binding that Jeremy is
>> working would be of use btw.
>
> Here's one I prepared earlier:
>
> http://devicetree.org/ClockBindings
Yup, but the documents have difference purposes. ClockB
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 20:45 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>
>> Either fought or embraced. To the extent that it is possible to focus
>> solely on Linux and ARM, one could image doing a good HAL.
>
> That will come with a huge amount o
[cc'ing linux-arm-kernel]
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 19:39 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>
>> Minimally, OFW needs to own some memory that the kernel won't steal.
>> OFW on ARM is position-independent, so it can be tucked up at the top of
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 23:07 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>>
>> What is needed to keep OFW alive? I've got no problem with doing so
>> if it isn't invasive, and as long as the same boot entry interface can
>> be used.
>
> Well, no. OF
[cc'ing linux-arm-kernel because we're discussing ARM issues]
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 06:30 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>>>
>>>
[cc'ing the mailing list as a call for help]
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 2:59 AM, Stephan Gatzka wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> I just startet to edit a PCI example for the device tree documentation (it's
> a draft).
>
> It would be very helpful to have a literature reference tag bla
> bla like wikipedia. Is
hi Ben,
> Maybe a paragraph on the new proposed clock binding that Jeremy is
> working would be of use btw.
Here's one I prepared earlier:
http://devicetree.org/ClockBindings
:)
Cheers,
Jeremy
___
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 20:45 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> > BTW. I notice no ARM list is CCed on this discussion ... maybe we
> should
> > fix that ?
> >
>
> Sounds like a good idea. Do you know which list(s) would be good
> candidates?
Forgot to reply to that one ... I'd say
linux-arm-ker
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 20:45 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> Either fought or embraced. To the extent that it is possible to focus
> solely on Linux and ARM, one could image doing a good HAL.
That will come with a huge amount of comunity resistance sadly, but I
can imagine distros liking it.
In g
12 matches
Mail list logo
