On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/21/08, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It was over a year ago when support for i2c devices in the device tree
>> was merged.
>
> I see, the old support needed the drivers to be built-in. The newer
> code dynami
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 09:00:09AM -0700, Yoder Stuart wrote:
>There are a few bindings specified in the ePAPR, based on the old
>Open Firmware working group stuff:
> -cpu
> -interrupt controllers
> -PCI
> -network devices
> -DCR devices
Er, I don't think that one is based on the old wor
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Mitch Bradley
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 12:19 AM
> To: David Miller
> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wood Scott
> Subject
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:39:40PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> I see, the old support needed the drivers to be built-in. The newer
> code dynamically loads the correct i2c driver and set its parameters.
>
> Did the old code use anything besides compatible?
Yes.
> It would have been using the older
From: Josh Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:50:48 -0400
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
> David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From: Josh Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:15:37 -0400
> >
> > > Huge? I'd say mistake, but not necessari
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Josh Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:15:37 -0400
>
> > Huge? I'd say mistake, but not necessarily huge. I mean nobody other
> > than you (at least in the context of this conversation)
David Miller wrote:
From: "Grant Likely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:34:31 -0600
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Grant Likely
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Mitch Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, I wrote most of 1275.
M
From: "Grant Likely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:34:31 -0600
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Grant Likely
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Mitch Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi, I wrote most of 1275.
> >>
> >> Mitch Bradley ([EMAI
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Grant Likely
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Mitch Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi, I wrote most of 1275.
>>
>> Mitch Bradley ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
> Hi Mitch,
>
> What is your suggestion. Where should we be discussing new
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Mitch Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I wrote most of 1275.
>
> Mitch Bradley ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Hi Mitch,
What is your suggestion. Where should we be discussing new device
tree bindings? Whether it be real Open Firmware, or flattened device
tree, or
Hi, I wrote most of 1275.
Mitch Bradley ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
David Miller wrote:
From: "Grant Likely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:18:56 -0600
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:53 PM, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Have patience with the embedded people that are bot
From: "Grant Likely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:18:56 -0600
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:53 PM, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Have patience with the embedded people that are both new to
> >> OpenFirmware and trying to make stuff work at the same time. I
> >> think
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:53 PM, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Have patience with the embedded people that are both new to
>> OpenFirmware and trying to make stuff work at the same time. I
>> think the devicetree-discuss list will help here as new bindings are
>> proposed. I hope you
From: Josh Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:15:37 -0400
> Huge? I'd say mistake, but not necessarily huge. I mean nobody other
> than you (at least in the context of this conversation) had access to
> the IEEE1275 proposed binding so it wasn't like there was tons to go on.
I
On 8/21/08, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 8/21/08, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Ugh, more like loads of pain. There are deployed platforms using the
> >> embedded 'invented' bindings. I d
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/21/08, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ugh, more like loads of pain. There are deployed platforms using the
>> embedded 'invented' bindings. I don't think it is an option to break
>> compatibility with older
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 16:32 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Grant Likely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:14:57 -0600
>
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > David Miller wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:12AM -0700,
On 8/21/08, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > David Miller wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>
> >> If you guys created this format in your compressed openfirmware
>
From: "Grant Likely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:14:57 -0600
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > David Miller wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >> If you guys created this format in your com
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> If you guys created this format in your compressed openfirmware
>> trees, is it possible for you to "fix" it to match what Sparc
>> s
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 15:28 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:05:02 +1000
>
> > Apple additionally have different ways of representing multiple busses
> > on one controller though. On some machines, they just use bits 0xF00 of
> Thanks for the clarification. The bus encoding seems different
> but we can solve that too.
>
> I've started a dialogue between Scott and the openfirmware Sun
> folks I know so that hopefully Scott can get a copy of the I2C
> bindings Sun uses and we can sort all of this out.
Sure. Currently
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:05:02 +1000
> Apple additionally have different ways of representing multiple busses
> on one controller though. On some machines, they just use bits 0xF00 of
> the address as the bus number, which is a bit gross, and on so
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:05:50 +1000
> On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 14:45 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > As far as I can tell from poking around
> > > http://penguinppc.org/historical/dev-trees-html/, they don't include
> > reg
> > > at all for i2c cl
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 14:45 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > As far as I can tell from poking around
> > http://penguinppc.org/historical/dev-trees-html/, they don't include
> reg
> > at all for i2c clients.
>
> That actually simplifies things for us, thanks for checking.
Unfortunately, while tha
> It's not really an instruction-set architecture issue, it's a binding
> issue. What if a non-OF embedded SPARC comes along that copies i2c from
> a PowerPC DTS file, or we come across a real-OF PowerPC that does it the
> SPARC way?
Like PowerMac ? :-)
Apple additionally have different ways
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 11:32 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > Mostly straightforward stuff _except_ for the I2C address encoding.
> >
> > What I2C IEEE1275 device binding was used to write that code in
> > of_i2c.c? Is it some PowerPC spe
From: "Jon Smirl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:53:02 -0400
> > 2) When CONFIG_SPARC, shift the device address down by one bit before
> >giving it to the Linux I2C layer.
>
> How do you deal with a 10-bit address i2c device? Is it multiplied by two too?
Yes.
On 8/21/08, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm working on some drivers for I2C bus support on some of my sparc64
> workstations (for lm-sensor and eeprom type devices sitting behind
> them) so I went back to trying to get of_i2c.c usable on sparc.
>
> Mostly straightforward stuff _
From: Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:35:02 -0500
> David Miller wrote:
> > If you guys created this format in your compressed openfirmware
> > trees, is it possible for you to "fix" it to match what Sparc
> > systems following the proper bindings do?
>
> Possibly, though
David Miller wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
2) When CONFIG_SPARC, shift the device address down by one bit before
giving it to the Linux I2C layer.
Maybe we should distinguish by the type of I2C bus node instead.
How so? If a Sparc and a PowerPC syste
From: Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:32:56 -0500
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > 2) When CONFIG_SPARC, shift the device address down by one bit before
> >giving it to the Linux I2C layer.
>
> Maybe we should distinguish by the type
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> Mostly straightforward stuff _except_ for the I2C address encoding.
>
> What I2C IEEE1275 device binding was used to write that code in
> of_i2c.c? Is it some PowerPC specific thing? Was it "invented"
> by the embedded folks (I hope
33 matches
Mail list logo
