> So where have we gotten on this?
>
> It seems we are in agreement that:
> 1. reserve memory should be probably be described in nodes
> 2. it should be pulled out of the memory node and put at root level
> 3. Use reg to describe the memory regions for a given node
>
> Now to figure out about how
On Sep 18, 2013, at 3:21 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 21:57 -0500, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>>> - It provides no indication of what a given region is used for (or used
>>> by). In the example, "display_region" is a label (thus information that
>>> is lost) and unless it
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:28:44AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 09/17/2013 03:15 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand
> > wrote:
> >> On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> I
On 09/17/2013 03:15 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what
Be
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 21:57 -0500, Grant Likely wrote:
> > - It provides no indication of what a given region is used for (or used
> > by). In the example, "display_region" is a label (thus information that
> > is lost) and unless it's referenced by another node there is no good way
> > to know w
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 18:38 -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:46:07 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> wrote:
> > In anycase, just "/memory" will break on at least powerpc.
>
> Ummm, really?
I meant the search for just '/memory' will break with the current path
searching algorith
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:56:39 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Monday 16 of September 2013 15:48:22 Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> > > On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:17 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > >> On 09/15/2013 08:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wr
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:57:54 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> [resent to the right list this time around]
>
> Hi folks !
>
> So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
> just today noticed the crackpot that went into 3.11 as part of commit:
>
> 9d8eab7af79cb4c
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:46:07 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> In anycase, just "/memory" will break on at least powerpc.
Ummm, really?
~/hacking/linux$ git grep 'memory {' arch/powerpc/boot/dts/* | wc -l
159
~/hacking/linux$ git grep 'memory@' arch/powerpc/boot/dts/* | wc -l
4
g.
--
To u
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:08:33PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >> I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what
> >> Ben said. Please see ePAPR chapter 2.2.1.1
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 14:33 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> > I don't think it's broken, why do you think so? It's at least
>> consistent.
>> > Probably not perfect and not complete, but IMHO a reasonable base
>> for
>> > further wor
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 14:33 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > I don't think it's broken, why do you think so? It's at least
> consistent.
> > Probably not perfect and not complete, but IMHO a reasonable base
> for
> > further work. (Also at least something written down that people can
> learn
> > fr
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 of September 2013 14:15:52 Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand
> wrote:
>> > On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> >>>
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 14:15 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Sigh, that's horrible. OF clearly doesn't require it.
Doesn't it ?
All OF implementations will create it, you would have to explicitly
remove the encode-unit method of the parent to make it disappear...
All I can find in 1275 is:
<<
So
On Tuesday 17 of September 2013 14:15:52 Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand
wrote:
> > On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >>> I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what
>>> Ben said. Please see ePAPR chapter 2.2.1.1, which clea
On 9/17/2013 9:43 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what
>> Ben said. Please see ePAPR chapter 2.2.1.1, which clearly defines how
>> nodes should be named.
>
> 2.2.1.1 is
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 09:56:39AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> I'm afraid that I must disagree. For consistency I'd rather go with what
> Ben said. Please see ePAPR chapter 2.2.1.1, which clearly defines how
> nodes should be named.
2.2.1.1 is there to point out that unit address _has_ to reflec
On Sep 16, 2013, at 5:42 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:22 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> Where is Jermey's binding documented ?
>
> It looks like I actually came up with this binding :-) Jeremy reminded
> me yesterday. It was posted to the DT list a while back, arguab
On Monday 16 of September 2013 15:48:22 Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:17 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 09/15/2013 08:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >> > [resent to the right list this time aro
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 16:48 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 15:48 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> > A node that has a "reg" property should have the corresponding unit
> >> > address.
> >>
> >> No, absolute
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 15:48 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> > A node that has a "reg" property should have the corresponding unit
>> > address.
>>
>> No, absolutely _NOT_ a requirement. Unit address is only required if
>> needed to d
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 15:48 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > A node that has a "reg" property should have the corresponding unit
> > address.
>
> No, absolutely _NOT_ a requirement. Unit address is only required if
> needed to disambiguate two properties with the same name.
>
> If there are no am
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:17 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 09/15/2013 08:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> > [resent to the right list this time around]
>> >
>> > Hi folks !
>> >
>> > So I don't have the bandwidth to follow
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:17 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 09/15/2013 08:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > [resent to the right list this time around]
> >
> > Hi folks !
> >
> > So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
> > just today noticed the crackpot th
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 10:22 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Where is Jermey's binding documented ?
It looks like I actually came up with this binding :-) Jeremy reminded
me yesterday. It was posted to the DT list a while back, arguably we
should have merged it.
> Is there concern of "breaking" whateve
On 09/15/2013 08:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> [resent to the right list this time around]
>
> Hi folks !
>
> So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
> just today noticed the crackpot that went into 3.11 as part of commit:
>
> 9d8eab7af79cb4ce2de5de39f82c4
On Sep 15, 2013, at 9:57 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> [resent to the right list this time around]
>
> Hi folks !
>
> So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
> just today noticed the crackpot that went into 3.11 as part of commit:
>
> 9d8eab7af79cb4ce2de5de
[resent to the right list this time around]
Hi folks !
So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
just today noticed the crackpot that went into 3.11 as part of commit:
9d8eab7af79cb4ce2de5de39f82c455b1f796963
drivers: of: add initialization code for dma reserved memo
Hi folks !
So I don't have the bandwidth to follow closely what's going on, but I
just today noticed the crackpot that went into 3.11 as part of commit:
9d8eab7af79cb4ce2de5de39f82c455b1f796963
drivers: of: add initialization code for dma reserved memory
Fist of all, do NOT add (or change) a bin
30 matches
Mail list logo
