Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-14 Thread Segher Boessenkool
@ in this case seperates the type of resources (pci) from the instance of it (device, function). So @ is a seperator. Using _ will add ambiguity as it is NOT a seperator. same problem for -. Stepan, will the OFW guys kill us if we allow ':' as well as @. The general syntax of a pathname

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-14 Thread Stefan Reinauer
Segher Boessenkool wrote: @ in this case seperates the type of resources (pci) from the instance of it (device, function). So @ is a seperator. Using _ will add ambiguity as it is NOT a seperator. same problem for -. Stepan, will the OFW guys kill us if we allow ':' as well as @. We are

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-14 Thread Segher Boessenkool
We are of course free to go away from the ePAPR flat device tree (we did already to some extent). I am not talking about the ePAPR flat tree. I am talking about the flat tree as used in PowerPC Linux for many years now. I agree with Segher we should stay close to the original. That's why

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-14 Thread ron minnich
Thanks for the notes. We did in the end resolve in favor of '@'. ron On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Segher Boessenkool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are of course free to go away from the ePAPR flat device tree (we did already to some extent). I am not talking about the ePAPR flat tree.

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-14 Thread Peter Stuge
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 07:12:54PM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote: The general syntax of a pathname component in OF is: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:args Thanks for the insight! unit-addr is (the text representation of) the address for the node, in the parent's address space. This statement

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-13 Thread Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
On 13.02.2008 18:18, ron minnich wrote: On Feb 13, 2008 9:17 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In that case I'd retract my opposition to @, but only if the v3 design doc gets an additional paragraph specifying the syntax with a hint to potential misunderstandings with

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-13 Thread Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
On 13.02.2008 18:11, ron minnich wrote: On Feb 13, 2008 9:05 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alternatives are - (used by memreserve and inside names) or : (used by memreg) or _ (used inside names). I hope at least one of them is considered as reasonable alternative.

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-13 Thread ron minnich
On Feb 13, 2008 9:05 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alternatives are - (used by memreserve and inside names) or : (used by memreg) or _ (used inside names). I hope at least one of them is considered as reasonable alternative. @ in this case seperates the type of resources

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-13 Thread Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
On 13.02.2008 04:58, ron minnich wrote: On Feb 12, 2008 3:02 PM, Corey Osgood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 12, 2008 3:15 PM, ron minnich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 12, 2008 11:13 AM, Peter Stuge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mainboard-vendor = Emulation;

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-13 Thread ron minnich
On Feb 13, 2008 9:17 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In that case I'd retract my opposition to @, but only if the v3 design doc gets an additional paragraph specifying the syntax with a hint to potential misunderstandings with @. OK, I'll wait on an ack and commit and

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-13 Thread ron minnich
Committed revision 593. I want to once again thank you all for your thoughtful comments. ron -- coreboot mailing list coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-12 Thread ron minnich
On Feb 12, 2008 11:13 AM, Peter Stuge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mainboard-vendor = Emulation; mainboard-name = QEMU x86; enabled; Again, is this enabled still needed? no, it is the default, I keep forgetting to yank it. Fixed. constructor =

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-12 Thread Corey Osgood
On Feb 12, 2008 3:15 PM, ron minnich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 12, 2008 11:13 AM, Peter Stuge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mainboard-vendor = Emulation; mainboard-name = QEMU x86; Can we possibly pull this info (or defaults for this info) from Kconfig?

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-12 Thread ron minnich
let's get the dts right before I submit any more code. I want us all to be happy with this. Let's start with this dts: /{ mainboard-vendor = Emulation; mainboard-name = QEMU x86; enabled; constructor = qemuvga_constructors; cpus {}; [EMAIL

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-11 Thread ron minnich
On Feb 11, 2008 5:46 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you handle the case where two identical PCI devices need different settings? That's actually very easy. The patch differentiates each device, while the id identifies what kind of device they are. I have the patch

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-11 Thread ron minnich
here is the proposed patch. Comments welcome. ron Implement new path syntax for the dts. The old syntax, where we had special property names for paths, is deprecated (well, removed, actually). So, instead of what we had before, a pathname property in a node, e.g. pcipath = 0xf, 1; Now you

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-11 Thread Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
On 12.02.2008 01:14, ron minnich wrote: On Feb 11, 2008 4:00 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like the new structure, but there is one thing that irritates me to no end: @ When I first read the dts without the accompanying discussion, I completely misunderstood the

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-11 Thread ron minnich
On Feb 11, 2008 4:00 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like the new structure, but there is one thing that irritates me to no end: @ When I first read the dts without the accompanying discussion, I completely misunderstood the structure because of the @. I thought the @

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-11 Thread Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
On 11.02.2008 22:26, ron minnich wrote: On Feb 11, 2008 5:46 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you handle the case where two identical PCI devices need different settings? That's actually very easy. The patch differentiates each device, while the id

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-11 Thread ron minnich
On Feb 10, 2008 9:32 PM, Peter Stuge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 01:35:01PM -0800, ron minnich wrote: southbridge/intel/i82371eb That doesn't help. PCI gives you two 16-bit numbers. From those two 16-bit numbers, you have to find a constructor. Doh. We have to use

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-10 Thread Peter Stuge
On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 09:35:49PM -0800, ron minnich wrote: It should be simple enough to get the type if struct property had a struct node *node; member so that the owner-parent node could be reached from within the property foreach loop. it's there. Hmm. How? but that doesn't

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-10 Thread ron minnich
On Feb 10, 2008 8:27 AM, Stefan Reinauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ron suggested to make this [EMAIL PROTECTED] { ... } and [EMAIL PROTECTED],0,0 { ... } I like that idea a lot. I think that would be the way to go.. It means we can not call the apic node my_weird_apic anymore, which is an

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-10 Thread Peter Stuge
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 10:17:01AM -0800, ron minnich wrote: What would such a global identifier be used for? You have found a type of a thing (e.g. southbridge) and you want to find the operations for that thing. You need an ID to do that. Ah! Of course. One option is we just adopt a

[coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-09 Thread ron minnich
This patch adds more path support to coreboot and to the dtc. This support in turn reduces annoying warning messages as coreboot comes up. ron These changes extend support for paths for devices. path.h: add superio path alix1c/dts: add paths for each component. device/device_util.c: add

Re: [coreboot] patch: more path support

2008-02-09 Thread ron minnich
On Feb 9, 2008 9:21 PM, Peter Stuge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It should be simple enough to get the type if struct property had a struct node *node; member so that the owner-parent node could be reached from within the property foreach loop. it's there. but that doesn't totally tell you what