Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755070Ab1BBS7y (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Feb 2011 13:59:54 -0500 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:11240 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754871Ab1BBS7x (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Feb 2011 13:59:53 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,415,1291622400"; d="scan'208";a="883711849" Message-ID: <4D49A9A8.6030600@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:59:52 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Organization: Intel Open Source Technology Center User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Drake CC: Andres Salomon , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Grant Likely , sodaville@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [sodaville] [PATCH v2 01/15] x86/e820: remove conditional early mapping in parse_e820_ext References: <1292600033-12271-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1292600033-12271-2-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20101230083745.GC11721@angua.secretlab.ca> <20110104130839.GA21359@www.tglx.de> <20110114081446.GC21832@angua.secretlab.ca> <20110114105709.GA7562@www.tglx.de> <20110114134345.712e2e29@queued.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1153 Lines: 32 On 01/27/2011 11:54 AM, Daniel Drake wrote: > > This patch will indeed cause problems for OLPC. Thanks for bringing it > to our attention. > > On OLPC, the device tree is not used as a source of devices like on > other platforms, it is simply used to present information to the > kernel and userspace (in read-only fashion). > > If I understand it correctly, the above patch is saying: if we have a > device tree, don't add the standard x86 RTC device. > > However, what we need it to say is: if we have a device tree *and* the > device tree is being used as a source of devices, don't add the > standard x86 RTC device. > > Therefore in the OLPC case, this particular bail-out condition will > never be met, because the device tree is not being used as a source of > devices. > > Does that make sense? > It makes sense in the abstract, but it sounds like OLPC is a total WTF in this sense... -hpa -- 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/