[PATCH] Start arch/powerpc/boot code reorganization

Mark A. Greer mgreer at mvista.com
Tue Sep 26 03:53:07 EST 2006

On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 12:15:19PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >All I'm try to say is that "fw,address" is just like the "reg"  
> >property
> >except that it holds the effective addr not the physical addr and the
> >size of the address is determined by the existence of "/cpus/64-bit"
> >not #address-cells.  That's all.
> Sounds good.
> >>Yes.  Except a "cell" is not what you think it is.  A "cell" is the
> >>size of numbers OF deals with internally; just deal with it.  Of
> >>course, there's things like "#address-cells", which really mean
> >>"#-32bit-things-per-address".
> >
> >Okay, well, when I talked about cells I meant "#-32bit-things-per- 
> >address".
> >Obviously it was silly of me to think that "#address-cells" meant  
> >the # of
> >address cells...
> Some background might clear things up (or not)...  A "cell" is the
> unit of data in a Forth system.  When OF was young (and not yet
> called OF), all systems were 32-bit, and the 32-bit-thingies in
> the properties (which weren't yet called properties) in the device
> tree were called cells as well.  When 64-bit came into the picture,
> everything fell apart.  The "correct" name for the property thingies
> now is "integers as encoded with encode-int".  Maybe we can compromise
> on calling it "property cells" or something.

Okay, fair enough.  I think you understand what I was trying to say,
right?  If so, do you have any objections to it?

> The situation is even worse with "package", let's not go there :-)

Heh. :)


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list