On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:54:15PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> Matt Sealey wrote:
>> Scott Wood wrote:
>>> It's deprecated *in the context of flat device trees*. Anything not
>>> using flat device trees is out-of-scope with respect to ePAPR.
>>
>> Isn't the beauty of a device tree that every firmware no matter what
>> type can present it in whatever form it chooses, but still be describing
>> the same hardware in the same way?
>
> When run-time services are not involved, yes. device_type was used by
> 1275 in the context of run-time services, which we don't have, so we
> didn't copy that property over (except for memory and cpu, to avoid
> gratuitous divergence).
>
>> I'm curious, is it the remit of the ePAPR TSC to publish and act as
>> a registration authority for device tree bindings for specific SoCs
>> or is that devolved to the SoC maker itself (be they a member of
>> Power.org or not) and, more prudent, two other questions; where are
>> Freescale and IBM publishing these if it is their responsibility,
>> are things like the mysterious i2c binding going to be published
>> under this TSC?
>
> There has been talk about setting up such a repository, but I'm not sure
> what the status of it is.
Progressing intermittently when people get small packets of time to
actually do something about it. We do really want this, it's just
no-one's yet had the spare cycles to make it happen.
At the moment things are published in the kernel documentation
(booting-without-of.txt, although I think it's now been split up into
multiple files), which is far from ideal, but better than nothing.
--
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
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
