RFC: top level compatibles for virtual platforms

Scott Wood scottwood at freescale.com
Tue Jul 12 07:06:46 EST 2011

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:41:35 -0500
Yoder Stuart-B08248 <B08248 at freescale.com> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wood Scott-B07421
> > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 1:05 PM
> > 
> > Just because Linux does it that way now doesn't mean it needs to.  The interrupt controller
> > has a compatible property.  Match on it like any other device.  You can find which one is the
> > root interrupt controller by looking for nodes with the interrupt-controller property that
> > doesn't have an explicit interrupt-parent (or an interrupts property?  seems to be a conflict
> > between ePAPR and the original interrupt mapping document).
> This may be the right long term thing to do, but restructuring
> how Linux powerpc platforms work is a bigger effort.  I was looking
> for an incremental improvement over what we do now, which is pass
> a compatible of MPC8544DS and P4080DS for these virtual platforms.

A hack is usually easier than doing it right. :-)

Though often the effort required for the latter is overstated, and the
"right long term thing" never makes the jump to "short term plan".

There are a few things that need to be driven off the device tree that
currently aren't -- using some mechanism other than the standard
device model, if necessary (or as a first step) -- and then we need a
does-nothing default platform as the match of last resort.

> However, they _are_ compatible with MPC8544DS and P4080DS so maybe
> leaving the compatible string alone is ok for now.

The virtual platforms are not compatible with MPC8544DS or P4080DS.  Only a
subset of what is on those boards is provided.  And in the case of direct
device assignment, often the things that are present are incompatible (e.g.
different type of eTSEC).


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list