Re: "memory" binding issues

[Olof Johansson]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 14:33 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> > I don't think it's broken, why do you think so? It's at least
>> consistent.
>> > Probably not perfect and not complete, but IMHO a reasonable base
>> for
>> > further work. (Also at least something written down that people can
>> learn
>> > from and/or refer to.)
>>
>> So, I stand corrected. It seems that at least one legacy system I'm
>> looking at always specifies unit address as well. I don't like it but
>> I'll stop arguing.
>>
>> Ben: The interesting part is that it does _not_ specify it on /memory
>> though. Nor, of course, on /cpus or /openprom. So assuming /memory@0
>> exists will break even on some powerpc platforms.
>
> What system is that out of curiosity ? Also make sure it's not just
> Linux being an idiot and stripping the @0 in /proc/device-tree ...
>
> (I think some old versions of /proc code would strip it)
>
> Or is that some insanely broken OF like Apple old world or Pegasos ?
>
> If it's just embedded .dts files, yes, I fixed some, but we might still
> have some bad ones.

The only powerpc hardware I still have these days is PA Semi systems,
so it's from one of them, with current -next kernel. Booted with OF
client interface, no dts file that can be fixed.

> In any case, we all agree, the right thing to do first is to fix our
> path parser to cope either way.

Yep, I just wanted to alert you that there's powerpc systems out there
with just /memory as well.


-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/