[LinuxBIOS] [RFC] v3: dts fixes and questions
Here's a patch which streamlines the dts contents a bit: - Every "thing" should have an "enable;" line (or am I missing some reason why they shouldn't?) - Every "thing" should have the "enable;" as first entry, if it has one. - Constructors should come before other stuff, but after the "enable;". Comments? Does the order in which variables are defined (e.g. ide0_enable) and in which the constructors are called matter? I.e. is there a semantic difference between { ide0_enable = "0"; ide1_enable = "0"; constructor = "i82371eb_constructors"; }; and { constructor = "i82371eb_constructors"; ide0_enable = "0"; ide1_enable = "0"; }; ? See patch for my proposal, but please note that it may be incorrent, that's why I'm asking... Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
On 6/30/07, Uwe Hermann <uwe@hermann-uwe.de> wrote:
Here's a patch which streamlines the dts contents a bit:
- Every "thing" should have an "enable;" line (or am I missing some reason why they shouldn't?)
no, the enable is part of the device struct that is device-independent, see device.h. You are right that every device should have this, so it is device-independent.
- Every "thing" should have the "enable;" as first entry, if it has one.
- Constructors should come before other stuff, but after the "enable;".
no, see above. Not needed.
Does the order in which variables are defined (e.g. ide0_enable) and in which the constructors are called matter? I.e. is there a semantic difference between
{ ide0_enable = "0"; ide1_enable = "0"; constructor = "i82371eb_constructors"; };
and
{ constructor = "i82371eb_constructors"; ide0_enable = "0"; ide1_enable = "0"; };
no, it does not matter. The order in which the dtc generates these in order declared, but people should not depend on that. thanks for your patch. The enabled; that you are adding to dts is fine, but hang on, stefan has another idea. ron
* Uwe Hermann <uwe@hermann-uwe.de> [070630 21:38]:
Here's a patch which streamlines the dts contents a bit:
- Every "thing" should have an "enable;" line (or am I missing some reason why they shouldn't?)
If every device node gets an enabled; entry, the meaning of enabled is bogus and we can leave it away. So adding enabled to all devices is a bad idea in my opinion. Ron explained to me that there might be some devices that need their bars set up so the bridge they hang off can be set up correctly, but the device itself should not be enabled. Hope I get it right. So instead of adding enabled; to all device nodes, we should add disabled to those that we do not want enabled. What do you think? -- coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br. Tel.: +49 761 7668825 • Fax: +49 761 7664613 Email: info@coresystems.de • http://www.coresystems.de/ Registergericht: Amtsgericht Freiburg • HRB 7656 Geschäftsführer: Stefan Reinauer • Ust-IdNr.: DE245674866
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 11:43:20PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
So instead of adding enabled; to all device nodes, we should add disabled to those that we do not want enabled. What do you think?
We should definately optimize for the common case whatever it is. //Peter
On 6/30/07, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 11:43:20PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
So instead of adding enabled; to all device nodes, we should add disabled to those that we do not want enabled. What do you think?
We should definately optimize for the common case whatever it is.
What I can do is look for a disable property in each node. If it is NOT found, emit .enabled = 1; If it is found, .enabled = 0; sound ok? ron
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 04:27:27PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
What I can do is look for a disable property in each node. If it is NOT found, emit .enabled = 1; If it is found, .enabled = 0;
sound ok?
Yes sir! As long as enabled is more common than disabled. //Peter
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 04:27:27PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
On 6/30/07, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 11:43:20PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
So instead of adding enabled; to all device nodes, we should add disabled to those that we do not want enabled. What do you think?
We should definately optimize for the common case whatever it is.
What I can do is look for a disable property in each node. If it is NOT found, emit .enabled = 1; If it is found, .enabled = 0;
sound ok?
Why not, instead of 'enabled;', use enabled="0" or enabled="1" then? That has the benefit that you don't have to know what the default is (enabled or disabled), you know everything you need just by looking at the dts itself. Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
On 6/30/07, Uwe Hermann <uwe@hermann-uwe.de> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 04:27:27PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
On 6/30/07, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 11:43:20PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
So instead of adding enabled; to all device nodes, we should add disabled to those that we do not want enabled. What do you think?
We should definately optimize for the common case whatever it is.
What I can do is look for a disable property in each node. If it is NOT found, emit .enabled = 1; If it is found, .enabled = 0;
sound ok?
Why not, instead of 'enabled;', use enabled="0" or enabled="1" then? That has the benefit that you don't have to know what the default is (enabled or disabled), you know everything you need just by looking at the dts itself.
Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGhvBIXdVoV3jWIbQRAgQoAJ0dDBxSH2BlcI7u0ldL93XOtM57/gCbB7nD 120zDwDQEbqpwuyLjU8xfAE= =hPcG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
Sorry about the lats empty message. Gmail did something, I know not what. On 6/30/07, Uwe Hermann <uwe@hermann-uwe.de> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 04:27:27PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
What I can do is look for a disable property in each node. If it is NOT found, emit .enabled = 1; If it is found, .enabled = 0;
sound ok?
Why not, instead of 'enabled;', use enabled="0" or enabled="1" then? That has the benefit that you don't have to know what the default is (enabled or disabled), you know everything you need just by looking at the dts itself.
yeah, that works. I will take the magic enabled out of the .y, and will require that people set that property for each node; I will catch a missing set at flatten tree time. I think that is reasonable. This will get done next week, I'm out of time for a bit. Or someone else can write it, which is fine too. ron
* ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> [070701 05:48]:
then? That has the benefit that you don't have to know what the default is (enabled or disabled), you know everything you need just by looking at the dts itself.
yeah, that works. I will take the magic enabled out of the .y, and will require that people set that property for each node; I will catch a missing set at flatten tree time. I think that is reasonable.
Please dont do that. I think it is reasonable to assume that a device that you specify is enabled. Otherwise why would you specify it? I dont like overspecifying completely obvious things in description files. Stefan -- coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br. Tel.: +49 761 7668825 • Fax: +49 761 7664613 Email: info@coresystems.de • http://www.coresystems.de/
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 12:38:32AM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
* ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> [070701 05:48]:
then? That has the benefit that you don't have to know what the default is (enabled or disabled), you know everything you need just by looking at the dts itself.
yeah, that works. I will take the magic enabled out of the .y, and will require that people set that property for each node; I will catch a missing set at flatten tree time. I think that is reasonable.
Please dont do that. I think it is reasonable to assume that a device that you specify is enabled. Otherwise why would you specify it?
I dont like overspecifying completely obvious things in description files.
Yeah, I think you're right. So we have two options: 1. disable="1" 2. enable="0" for devices which should be disabled. I think option 1 is a bit clearer. Thoughts? Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
Uwe Hermann wrote:
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 12:38:32AM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
* ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> [070701 05:48]:
then? That has the benefit that you don't have to know what the default is (enabled or disabled), you know everything you need just by looking at the dts itself.
yeah, that works. I will take the magic enabled out of the .y, and will require that people set that property for each node; I will catch a missing set at flatten tree time. I think that is reasonable.
Please dont do that. I think it is reasonable to assume that a device that you specify is enabled. Otherwise why would you specify it?
I dont like overspecifying completely obvious things in description files.
Yeah, I think you're right.
So we have two options:
1. disable="1" 2. enable="0"
for devices which should be disabled. I think option 1 is a bit clearer. Thoughts?
Uwe.
Agreed. Default to hardware enabled unless explicitly disabled, and clearly state that somewhere, seems the best route to me. -Corey
On 7/2/07, Corey Osgood <corey.osgood@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreed. Default to hardware enabled unless explicitly disabled, and clearly state that somewhere, seems the best route to me.
Will do. Look for it in a few days. ron
participants (5)
-
Corey Osgood -
Peter Stuge -
ron minnich -
Stefan Reinauer -
Uwe Hermann