WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-ppc-devel

Re: [XenPPC] [pushed] [ppc] serial port discovery and zilog device drive

On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 13:13 -0400, Maria Butrico wrote:
> 
> I re-read the email and I think I adopted your suggestions.  Some are
> in 
> the last patch I sent and some in the one that was committed.  What I 
> did not do is to invoke the serial port initialization code from the 
> platform specific initialization.

Ignore the specific "platform" vs "serial port" detection for a moment.
It is the same scenario: you have a property, and from that value you
need to decide what code to call. Your approach (in both cases) was to
define a global structure and an enum. My counter-proposal is explained
at
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-ppc-devel/2006-04/msg00042.html . 
Despite that, you continued to use the global structure/enum approach in the 
patch which was just committed.

> I think a broader discussion is 
> merited on this, and the other issue you raised elsewhere regarding 
> simple vs canonical probes.  I do not think it is useful to hold this 
> discussion as a consequence of a patch. 

That is the best time to have the discussion. Actually, the best time is
*before* the patch is committed, but that's an issue for Jimi. I'm
strongly tempted to revert the patch in question, not because I don't
like you, but because there is obviously some disagreement over it, so
it's clear it was committed prematurely.

> Between the serial port detection and the platform detection patch
> there was a change, that is, we thought we could delay the platform
> detection and do it against the OFD tree.  In retrospect, that would
> have been too late.  Since we now do the platform detection earlier
> (from boot_of.c), then we could probably switch the serial port
> initialization there too.

Yes, it looks like we can call ns16550_init() quite early.

>   Unfortunately the detection of the serial port and the
> identification of its address does not change much one way or another.

Is this a problem? If so I don't understand the issue.

> Beside Jimi, Hollis and myself, who else is interested in this issue
> and wants to participate in a meeting to discuss this? 

I didn't realize there was still confusion. Maybe we can try to clear it
up by email first?

-- 
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center


_______________________________________________
Xen-ppc-devel mailing list
Xen-ppc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ppc-devel