Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:46:18 -0400 | From | Andres Salomon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] OLPC: Add support for calling into Open Firmware |
| |
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:18:11 +0100 David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 13:03 -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > > Quite simply, it's a lot more work (*and* we have to play nice w/ > > sparc and ppc). > > It's only more work because we did it the wrong way in the first place. > If only someone had pointed it out at the time... :) >
Yes, and if only we had an infinite number of kernel hackers who had time to work on such things, then we could've done things differently.
> For interaction with device-tree properties in generic code, you should > be using the functions defined in <linux/of.h>. >
At the time [the OFW interface] was written, linux/of.h didn't *exist*.
> Creating the static device-tree before we quiesce OpenFirmware surely > shouldn't be so hard? Can't we cut and paste most of that code anyway? >
We're not adding a device tree right now, we're adding a method for querying OFW for information. Eventually that information should be obtained from a device tree. However, that's going to take additional time, and I'd like to get rid of some of these patches that we've been carrying around.
> > I had intended to eventually do it, but first I wanted > > to get this stuff in for 2.6.26 so that we could at least boot upstream > > kernels on XOs. > > Is it only the things in your second patch which need to be made to > work? One of them was already working, by grubbing around in the BIOS > directly -- so all we need is the board revision, isn't it? Can we get > that from the EC for now? >
Well, no, it wasn't already working; that's the reason this whole thread started. It was crashing someone's machine. That's why the OFW interface, as imperfect as it is, is an _improvement_.
-- Need a kernel or Debian developer? Contact me, I'm looking for contracts.
| |