Porting RapidIO from ppc arch to powerpc arch in support of MPC8641D

[Phil Terry]

On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 18:05 +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> The law should really be removed.
> > In my application I'm may be using a huge part of the 36-bit address
> > space to address multiple remote RIO boards in a peer DMA multicomputer
> > application. The default law just for maintenance messages isn't going
> > to cut it.
> 
> If the firmware sets up the "law", it should put a property
> in the node describing the setting.  If Linux sets up the
> laws, there shouldn't be a property (since it is a policy
> decision).
Ooops, I just posted a question to you before I saw this pop up sorry?

But when you say "firmware" do you mean u-boot or your kernel loading
code or do you mean some aspect of the hardware, eg, its EEPROM program
which can vary from hardware to hardware instantiation?

If you mean u-boot I'm confused (so whats new?). AFAIK u-boot can't
probe and set this up and even if it did, linux in the arch's I'm
familiar with sets everything up anew regardless of what the boot loader
did. AFAIK in the freescale processors the dtb is being passed in from
u-boot as a supplied with the kernel build "blob" not because it built
it dynamically. Or again have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick?

Cheers
Phil

> 
> >>> The dbells and mboxs can be removed. The default setting in rio is 
> >>> okay.
> >>
> >> this could possibly be useful.
> 
> Same issue.  Even if the firmware uses a default setting,
> it should still put it in the device tree _iff_ it is the
> firmware's decision (and not the kernel's).
> 
> 
> Segher
> 
> 
>