On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 08:44:45PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Mitch Bradley wrote:
> >On 11/28/2010 12:53 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >>>I wasn't aware of the OFW binding for X86. I will follow it once I find
> >>>it.
> >>Interesting, I though I would find it on
> >>http://www.openfirmware.info/Bindings but it's not there...
> >>CC'ing Mitch who might know where to find that.
> >
> >I'd be happy to work with people to develop a new x86 binding.
>
> So for the CPU node I have so far:
>
> cpus {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
>
> c...@0 {
> device_type = "cpu";
> compatible = "Intel,CE4100";
> reg = <0>;
> lapic = <&lapic0>;
> };
> };
>
> This one should match ePARP 1.0. David mentioned threads. I have just one.
> No HyperThreading, nothing special. Should I just leave it as it or go
> for:
> cpus {
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
>
> c...@0 {
> device_type = "cpu";
> compatible = "Intel,CE4100";
> reg = <0>;
> lapic = <&lapic0>;
>
> thr...@0 {
> reg = <0>;
> };
> };
> };
> ?
Leave it as is. For hyperthreading there's a good chance you'll be
able to get away with the simple extension we're planning to use in
ePAPR 1.1, which would be:
c...@0 {
...
reg = <0 1 2 3>;
...
};
For, e.g. a cpu with 4 threads.
If more detailed per-thread information is needed then we or you might
want sub-nodes one day. But even if we do that, we should allow them
to be omitted in the single-thread case.
--
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
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
