On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 08:14:57PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
How does everyone feel abot unions?
Bad. I dont think we need them. (Well if we did, it would be an idea)
Agreed, if no need then no reason.
I think what we want is a generic MC structure.
Yes, this sounds good.
BUT we also want a platform specific sysinfo structure.
What would it hold? Is it the initial device tree in code?
And sysinfo is what we want to pass there, not MC. I think the object model is wrong at the moment.
Quite possible. I'm not sure how things are right now, just what I think I'd like:
A device tree (not list) in code that * is seeded by the mainboard dts, which lists all devices * has device options set from defaults in device dts * has device option overrides from mainboard dts * has device option overrides from Kconfig * can be translated to (if it isn't already) a device tree for consumption by the kernel
Sorry if you've already had to get me to drop this once, but it's the nice and neat structure that I imagined at the symposium when we started talking about dts and so on. Is my thinking wrong?
Also, can there be more than one MC on a northbridge?
In theory. But the meminit code would know that. No need to define it every time.
How would it know?
I think the tree should have several ctrl nodes - one per MC. Right?
//Peter