Porting RapidIO from ppc arch to powerpc arch in support of MPC8641D
Segher Boessenkool
segher at kernel.crashing.org
Thu May 24 09:05:25 EST 2007
>> 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?
No problem.
> 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?
Any of those. Anything before the kernel takes control.
> If you mean u-boot I'm confused (so whats new?). AFAIK u-boot can't
> probe and set this up
Maybe it should.
> 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.
...and maybe that needs changing.
If it's a platform thing, it's the platform firmware code
that should configure it (and then it belongs in the device
tree). If reasonably the kernel should configure it later,
_it_ should do it (and then there shouldn't be a device tree
property).
I have no clue which it is.
Segher
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list