Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754645Ab0K2Cdx (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Nov 2010 21:33:53 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:34826 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754448Ab0K2Cdw (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Nov 2010 21:33:52 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:22:08 +1100 From: David Gibson To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , sodaville@linutronix.de, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] x86/dtb: Add a device tree for CE4100 Message-ID: <20101129022208.GA3727@yookeroo> Mail-Followup-To: David Gibson , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , sodaville@linutronix.de, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1290706801-7323-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1290706801-7323-4-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1290808645.32570.158.camel@pasglop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1290808645.32570.158.camel@pasglop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1853 Lines: 48 On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 08:57:25AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > + */ > > +/dts-v1/; > > +/ { > > + model = "x86,CE4100"; > > + compatible = "x86,CE4100"; > > Use a vendor name rather than "x86" here. > > > + #address-cells = <1>; > > + #size-cells = <1>; > > + > > + cpus { > > + x86,Atom@0 { > > "Atom" would benefit from being more precise, like adding the model > number. Also you want some properties there defining maybe the mask, the > cache characteristics, etc... There's an exising OFW binding for x86, I > suppose you could follow it. A "reg" property at least is mandatory > here. In the PowerPC flat-tree world, the newly established convention is to extend the generic names convention to cpu nodes, so we name the nodes just "cpu@0" etc. and move the more specific cpu type ("PowerPC,970FX" / "x86,Atom" / whatever) to the compatible property. I'd recommend this convention to you, even though it's a bit of a break from earlier standard practice, it makes device tree manipulations by bootloaders and other intermediate things a bit easier. > Also how do you plan to expose threading capability ? Unless the existing x86 bindings specify something different, I'd suggest the method we're planning to put into ePAPR 1.1 for PowerPC chips. That is, threads sharing an MMU go in the same cpu node, with the individual thread numbers given as multiple entries in the "reg" property. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson -- 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/