Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751410AbXAKTLg (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:11:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751412AbXAKTLg (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:11:36 -0500 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.239]:26972 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751410AbXAKTLd (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:11:33 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=pTEj4odkS7UXMXepi/an318MUoxuPIyi9HWVY1gwIdjqwAiCusmbNjaBZEgR+P/c5FAclfRB58W3ckzlzB5wygT5n7MV76jOMbisDeTsHcaRct24ZIaEboz7oOSKrZXxCpqDRZTWKh35IsGj8qTdWGzLFCR6dM9FXowLaOp2UDk= Message-ID: <13426df10701111111y57776285ma14b6effb236af58@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:11:32 -0700 From: "ron minnich" To: "Stefan Reinauer" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Open Firmware device tree virtual filesystem Cc: "OLPC Developer's List" , "Linux Kernel ML" , "Mitch Bradley" In-Reply-To: <20070111182041.GA6243@coresystems.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <13426df10701110939k21f7bb1dy38d2b34ca37a5a36@mail.gmail.com> <20070111182041.GA6243@coresystems.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1068 Lines: 25 On 1/11/07, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > This works fine for just passing the device tree, but it will fail for > the next step of being able to use the firmware in the OS, and returning > sanely to the firmware. And why is it we need to do that, presently? And how, in a virtualized environment, for example, would you plan to support this calling into firmware? (I sort of know how IBM does it, I am wondering how OFW would plan to do it). We can standardize passing a device tree structure across a very wide range of environments. But supporting callbacks is necessarily going to be a much smaller range of environments. It sounds, however, like it will be possible to do both the callback and non-callback cases, so I think I'm fine with that anyway. I will wait for Segher's patch. thanks ron - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/