> Jon Loeliger wrote:
>
> >> +struct irq_host {
> >> + int (*xlate)(struct irq_host *h, const u32 *intspec, u32 intsize,
> >> + u32 *out_hwirq, u32 *out_type);
> >> + void *priv;
> >> + struct device_node *controller;
> >> + struct list_head l;
> >> +};
> >
> > I thought ther
> + */
> +/dts-v1/;
> +/ {
> + model = "x86,CE4100";
> + compatible = "x86,CE4100";
Use a vendor name rather than "x86" here.
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> +
> + cpus {
> + x86,a...@0 {
"Atom" would benefit from being more precise, like addin
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 18:39 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> This patch adds minimal support for device tree support on x86. It will
> be passed to the kernel via setup_data which requires atleast boot
> protocol 2.09.
> Memory size, restricted memory regions, boot arguments are gathered t
On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 15:19 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> AFAIK Benh was thinking about renaming it. I don't know if this is
> still
> the case or when he intends to do so. Once he does so, this can be
> renamed
> as well.
That and moving the powerpc code to a generic place so you don
Jon Loeliger wrote:
+struct irq_host {
+ int (*xlate)(struct irq_host *h, const u32 *intspec, u32 intsize,
+ u32 *out_hwirq, u32 *out_type);
+ void *priv;
+ struct device_node *controller;
+ struct list_head l;
+};
I thought there was an intent and
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/prom.h
+#ifdef __KERNEL__
This file is not exported to userspace - so no need to guard with __KERNEL__
Removed.
Sam
Sebastian
___
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.oz
