* Machine ID question @ 2011-02-09 21:23 John Linn 2011-02-10 8:29 ` Uwe Kleine-König 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: John Linn @ 2011-02-09 21:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel I used the form to create a new machine ID for the new Xilinx platform in anticipation of the code making it into the mainline sometime in the future. The proposed patches are using ARCH_XILINX in the Kconfig. Below is the line that it created when I clicked on this link: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/download.php xilinx MACH_XILINX XILINX 3343 Did I hose it up as the form wasn't completely clear to me (if I needed to enter ARCH_XILINX)? Thanks, John This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Machine ID question 2011-02-09 21:23 Machine ID question John Linn @ 2011-02-10 8:29 ` Uwe Kleine-König 2011-02-14 14:46 ` John Linn 2011-02-14 15:12 ` Alexander Stein 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2011-02-10 8:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 02:23:07PM -0700, John Linn wrote: > I used the form to create a new machine ID for the new Xilinx platform > in anticipation of > the code making it into the mainline sometime in the future. > > The proposed patches are using ARCH_XILINX in the Kconfig. You should use MACH_XILINX in the patches. There are some ARCH_... in the machine db, but I think nowadays you cannot (and should not) create them there. > > Below is the line that it created when I clicked on this link: > http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/download.php > > xilinx MACH_XILINX XILINX > 3343 > > Did I hose it up as the form wasn't completely clear to me (if I needed > to enter ARCH_XILINX)? > > Thanks, > John > > > > This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the > named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be hmm, I'm at least not named explicitly, still I think the intention of your mail was to get an answer. IMHO it's not very sensible to add this footer on postings to public mailing lists. > proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you > are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this > email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any > attachments immediately. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Machine ID question 2011-02-10 8:29 ` Uwe Kleine-König @ 2011-02-14 14:46 ` John Linn 2011-02-14 15:12 ` Alexander Stein 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: John Linn @ 2011-02-14 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel > -----Original Message----- > From: Uwe Kleine-K?nig [mailto:u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de] > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 1:29 AM > To: John Linn > Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > Subject: Re: Machine ID question > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 02:23:07PM -0700, John Linn wrote: > > I used the form to create a new machine ID for the new Xilinx platform > > in anticipation of > > the code making it into the mainline sometime in the future. > > > > The proposed patches are using ARCH_XILINX in the Kconfig. > You should use MACH_XILINX in the patches. There are some ARCH_... in > the machine db, but I think nowadays you cannot (and should not) create > them there. Russell, should I change from ARCH_XILINX to MACH_XILINX in the V3 of my patchset? > > > > > Below is the line that it created when I clicked on this link: > > http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/download.php > > > > xilinx MACH_XILINX XILINX > > 3343 > > > > Did I hose it up as the form wasn't completely clear to me (if I needed > > to enter ARCH_XILINX)? > > > > Thanks, > > John > > > > > > > > This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the > > named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be > hmm, I'm at least not named explicitly, still I think the intention of > your mail was to get an answer. IMHO it's not very sensible to add this > footer on postings to public mailing lists. Agreed. Not my choice and will discuss more with others to see if I can get around it and still use corporate email. > > > proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you > > are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this > > email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any > > attachments immediately. > > Best regards > Uwe Thanks Uwe, -- John > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | > Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Machine ID question 2011-02-10 8:29 ` Uwe Kleine-König 2011-02-14 14:46 ` John Linn @ 2011-02-14 15:12 ` Alexander Stein 2011-02-20 13:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Alexander Stein @ 2011-02-14 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Thursday 10 February 2011, 09:29:15 Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 02:23:07PM -0700, John Linn wrote: > > I used the form to create a new machine ID for the new Xilinx platform > > in anticipation of > > the code making it into the mainline sometime in the future. > > > > The proposed patches are using ARCH_XILINX in the Kconfig. > > You should use MACH_XILINX in the patches. There are some ARCH_... in > the machine db, but I think nowadays you cannot (and should not) create > them there. Uhm, the last entry in the db was created today (14th Feb). Is there a reason why there no new entries should be created? Alexander ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Machine ID question 2011-02-14 15:12 ` Alexander Stein @ 2011-02-20 13:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2011-02-21 14:41 ` John Linn 2011-02-21 15:03 ` Alexander Stein 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Russell King - ARM Linux @ 2011-02-20 13:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 04:12:16PM +0100, Alexander Stein wrote: > On Thursday 10 February 2011, 09:29:15 Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 02:23:07PM -0700, John Linn wrote: > > > I used the form to create a new machine ID for the new Xilinx platform > > > in anticipation of > > > the code making it into the mainline sometime in the future. > > > > > > The proposed patches are using ARCH_XILINX in the Kconfig. > > > > You should use MACH_XILINX in the patches. There are some ARCH_... in > > the machine db, but I think nowadays you cannot (and should not) create > > them there. > > Uhm, the last entry in the db was created today (14th Feb). Is there a reason > why there no new entries should be created? huh? The machine registry hands out MACH_foo identifiers. It used to hand them out as ARCH_foo identifiers, but we decided that was misleading - it's dealing with machines, not architectures. So a MACH_ prefix is more correct than an ARCH_ prefix. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Machine ID question 2011-02-20 13:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux @ 2011-02-21 14:41 ` John Linn 2011-02-21 15:03 ` Alexander Stein 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: John Linn @ 2011-02-21 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel > -----Original Message----- > From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:linux at arm.linux.org.uk] > Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 6:04 AM > To: Alexander Stein > Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; John Linn; Uwe Kleine-K?nig > Subject: Re: Machine ID question > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 04:12:16PM +0100, Alexander Stein wrote: > > On Thursday 10 February 2011, 09:29:15 Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 02:23:07PM -0700, John Linn wrote: > > > > I used the form to create a new machine ID for the new Xilinx > platform > > > > in anticipation of > > > > the code making it into the mainline sometime in the future. > > > > > > > > The proposed patches are using ARCH_XILINX in the Kconfig. > > > > > > You should use MACH_XILINX in the patches. There are some ARCH_... > in > > > the machine db, but I think nowadays you cannot (and should not) > create > > > them there. > > > > Uhm, the last entry in the db was created today (14th Feb). Is there > a reason > > why there no new entries should be created? > > huh? > > The machine registry hands out MACH_foo identifiers. It used to hand > them out as ARCH_foo identifiers, but we decided that was misleading - > it's dealing with machines, not architectures. So a MACH_ prefix is > more correct than an ARCH_ prefix. Thanks Russell, yea I figured that out after I had sent this out. Appreciate the help, John This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Machine ID question 2011-02-20 13:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2011-02-21 14:41 ` John Linn @ 2011-02-21 15:03 ` Alexander Stein 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Alexander Stein @ 2011-02-21 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Sunday 20 February 2011, 14:04:20 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 04:12:16PM +0100, Alexander Stein wrote: > > On Thursday 10 February 2011, 09:29:15 Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 02:23:07PM -0700, John Linn wrote: > > > > I used the form to create a new machine ID for the new Xilinx > > > > platform in anticipation of > > > > the code making it into the mainline sometime in the future. > > > > > > > > The proposed patches are using ARCH_XILINX in the Kconfig. > > > > > > You should use MACH_XILINX in the patches. There are some ARCH_... in > > > the machine db, but I think nowadays you cannot (and should not) create > > > them there. > > > > Uhm, the last entry in the db was created today (14th Feb). Is there a > > reason why there no new entries should be created? > > huh? > > The machine registry hands out MACH_foo identifiers. It used to hand > them out as ARCH_foo identifiers, but we decided that was misleading - > it's dealing with machines, not architectures. So a MACH_ prefix is > more correct than an ARCH_ prefix. Ah, without that knowledge Uwe's mail was a bit misleading. Thanks for clarification. Alexander ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-02-21 15:03 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-02-09 21:23 Machine ID question John Linn 2011-02-10 8:29 ` Uwe Kleine-König 2011-02-14 14:46 ` John Linn 2011-02-14 15:12 ` Alexander Stein 2011-02-20 13:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2011-02-21 14:41 ` John Linn 2011-02-21 15:03 ` Alexander Stein
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.