Re: [PATCHv6 00/16] boot order specification

[Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>]

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 03:13:52PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 09:54:04AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:56:10PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > On 11/23/2010 06:12 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > >On 11/23/2010 09:31 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > >>Anthony, Blue
> > > >>
> > > >>No comments on this patch series for almost a week. Can it be applied?
> > > >
> > > >Does that mean everyone's happy or have folks not gotten around to
> > > >review it?
> > > >
> > > >IOW, last call if you have objections :-)
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I haven't reviewed this - I trust the author and maintainers to get
> > > it right.
> > > 
> > > But I notice the there is no documentation - surely some is needed?
> > > 
> > 
> > The patch creates Openfirmware device path from qdev
> > hierarchy. Each element of a device path depends on type of a bus
> > the device resides on. You can find various bus bindings here:
> > http://playground.sun.com/1275/bindings/ and main spec is here
> 
> sun.com links have a tendency to disappear nowdays :)
> Is this the official location?  Aren't bindings part of some standard?
I think this is official location.

> 
> It also worries me that PCI Express bindings are in a 'proposal' form
> from August 2004.  The PCI bindings are from 1994. They are likely to miss
> some recent technology advancements :)
> 
> 
> Further, while this last document which is only 28 page in length, is
> not readable by itself: one must first digest the openfirmware spec.
> However ...
> 
> > http://forthworks.com/standards/of1275.pdf.
> 
> That's 266 pages of a specification.  I am guessing that most of it is
> irrelevant for the task in question?  Can we have a small text document
> including just the path format, please?
> 
So basically you are complaining that reading specs is difficult. It is. That's
life.
 
--
			Gleb.