Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755233Ab0F2XgZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:36:25 -0400 Received: from LUNGE.MIT.EDU ([18.54.1.69]:50566 "EHLO lunge.queued.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751733Ab0F2XgY (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:36:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:36:18 -0400 From: Andres Salomon To: Grant Likely Cc: devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, cjb@laptop.org, Mitch Bradley , pgf@laptop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sparc: break out some prom device-tree building code out into drivers/of Message-ID: <20100629193618.5a840b8e@dev.queued.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20100628215407.2017bf2f@debian> <20100628220037.5744c207@debian> <20100629110324.2756cc02@debian> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.5 (GTK+ 2.12.12; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1285 Lines: 29 On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:42:54 -0600 Grant Likely wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Andres Salomon > wrote: [...] > > > Sparc and OLPC have very similar > > mechanisms for getting device tree info from OFW, so it makes sense > > to share code between them. > > Other than the flattened tree step; is the powerpc method dissimilar > from the Sparc and OLPC method for talking to OFW? (This is not a > rhetorical question, I'm want to know if I'm missing some details). > The main difference I know about is that OFW can still kept alive at > runtime for sparc, which powerpc does not do. However, keeping OFW > callable is a separate issue from how to extract the device tree. > After having a look at powerpc's flatten_device_tree, I don't see any obvious reason why OLPC couldn't use this (though it still strikes me as weird to go from prom->fdt->dt when the option of prom->dt is available and less complex). Do you already have the patches that put this into drivers/of/? -- 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/