From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757014Ab3EXROI (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2013 13:14:08 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:57052 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756106Ab3EXROG (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2013 13:14:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:13:00 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Jason Cooper Cc: Linus Walleij , Jason Gunthorpe , Andrew Lunn , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Grant Likely , Lennert Buytenhek , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org list" , David Miller , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Sebastian Hesselbarth Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: mv643xx_eth: proper initialization for Kirkwood SoCs Message-ID: <20130524171300.GD18614@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1369253042-15082-2-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <20130522201607.GA18823@obsidianresearch.com> <20130523160111.GP31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20130523171112.GB31281@obsidianresearch.com> <20130523172339.GQ31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20130523175357.GB2821@obsidianresearch.com> <20130523184028.GU31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> <519E9ADA.3040204@gmail.com> <20130524170125.GX31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130524170125.GX31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 01:01:25PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 01:03:25PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > IMO: if you want to go down that road, what you really want is not > > ever more expressible device trees, but real open firmware, > > or ACPI or UEFI that can interpret and run bytecode as some > > "bios" for you. With DT coming from OF maybe this is a natural > > progression of things, but one has to realize when we reach the > > point where what we really want is a bios. Then your time is > > likely better spent with Tianocore or something than with the > > kernel. > > shudder. I like embedded systems because the *don't* have a bios. Then you're into scenarios like I have with my laptop, where - those of you who check the nightly build results will have noticed - one of my serial ports doesn't always exist. That's because the ACPI data in the BIOS is *wrong*. It reports that it has been enabled when it hasn't, and the disassembled byte code is at fault here. The fix? God knows. As far as I'm concerned as a user, or even as an OS developer, it's unfixable without getting the ACPI data structures changed, and that's not something I can do. Do you really want that on ARM? Given the fiasco with the location of the registers, are you sure you want to place more trust in that direction? Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling to know that you might have to work out some way to patch vendor supplied bytecode? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: mv643xx_eth: proper initialization for Kirkwood SoCs Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:13:00 +0100 Message-ID: <20130524171300.GD18614@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1369253042-15082-2-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <20130522201607.GA18823@obsidianresearch.com> <20130523160111.GP31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20130523171112.GB31281@obsidianresearch.com> <20130523172339.GQ31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20130523175357.GB2821@obsidianresearch.com> <20130523184028.GU31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> <519E9ADA.3040204@gmail.com> <20130524170125.GX31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Walleij , Jason Gunthorpe , Andrew Lunn , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Grant Likely , Lennert Buytenhek , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org list" , David Miller , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Sebastian Hesselbarth To: Jason Cooper Return-path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:57048 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751406Ab3EXRN4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2013 13:13:56 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130524170125.GX31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 01:01:25PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 01:03:25PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > IMO: if you want to go down that road, what you really want is not > > ever more expressible device trees, but real open firmware, > > or ACPI or UEFI that can interpret and run bytecode as some > > "bios" for you. With DT coming from OF maybe this is a natural > > progression of things, but one has to realize when we reach the > > point where what we really want is a bios. Then your time is > > likely better spent with Tianocore or something than with the > > kernel. > > shudder. I like embedded systems because the *don't* have a bios. Then you're into scenarios like I have with my laptop, where - those of you who check the nightly build results will have noticed - one of my serial ports doesn't always exist. That's because the ACPI data in the BIOS is *wrong*. It reports that it has been enabled when it hasn't, and the disassembled byte code is at fault here. The fix? God knows. As far as I'm concerned as a user, or even as an OS developer, it's unfixable without getting the ACPI data structures changed, and that's not something I can do. Do you really want that on ARM? Given the fiasco with the location of the registers, are you sure you want to place more trust in that direction? Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling to know that you might have to work out some way to patch vendor supplied bytecode? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk (caramon.arm.linux.org.uk [IPv6:2002:4e20:1eda::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA5FB2C02B1 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 03:14:15 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:13:00 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: mv643xx_eth: proper initialization for Kirkwood SoCs Message-ID: <20130524171300.GD18614@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1369253042-15082-2-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <20130522201607.GA18823@obsidianresearch.com> <20130523160111.GP31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20130523171112.GB31281@obsidianresearch.com> <20130523172339.GQ31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20130523175357.GB2821@obsidianresearch.com> <20130523184028.GU31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> <519E9ADA.3040204@gmail.com> <20130524170125.GX31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20130524170125.GX31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> Sender: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Andrew Lunn , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Linus Walleij , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , David Miller , Jason Gunthorpe , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org list" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , Lennert Buytenhek , Sebastian Hesselbarth List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 01:01:25PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 01:03:25PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > IMO: if you want to go down that road, what you really want is not > > ever more expressible device trees, but real open firmware, > > or ACPI or UEFI that can interpret and run bytecode as some > > "bios" for you. With DT coming from OF maybe this is a natural > > progression of things, but one has to realize when we reach the > > point where what we really want is a bios. Then your time is > > likely better spent with Tianocore or something than with the > > kernel. > > shudder. I like embedded systems because the *don't* have a bios. Then you're into scenarios like I have with my laptop, where - those of you who check the nightly build results will have noticed - one of my serial ports doesn't always exist. That's because the ACPI data in the BIOS is *wrong*. It reports that it has been enabled when it hasn't, and the disassembled byte code is at fault here. The fix? God knows. As far as I'm concerned as a user, or even as an OS developer, it's unfixable without getting the ACPI data structures changed, and that's not something I can do. Do you really want that on ARM? Given the fiasco with the location of the registers, are you sure you want to place more trust in that direction? Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling to know that you might have to work out some way to patch vendor supplied bytecode? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:13:00 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] net: mv643xx_eth: proper initialization for Kirkwood SoCs In-Reply-To: <20130524170125.GX31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> References: <1369253042-15082-2-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <20130522201607.GA18823@obsidianresearch.com> <20130523160111.GP31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20130523171112.GB31281@obsidianresearch.com> <20130523172339.GQ31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20130523175357.GB2821@obsidianresearch.com> <20130523184028.GU31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> <519E9ADA.3040204@gmail.com> <20130524170125.GX31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> Message-ID: <20130524171300.GD18614@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 01:01:25PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 01:03:25PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > IMO: if you want to go down that road, what you really want is not > > ever more expressible device trees, but real open firmware, > > or ACPI or UEFI that can interpret and run bytecode as some > > "bios" for you. With DT coming from OF maybe this is a natural > > progression of things, but one has to realize when we reach the > > point where what we really want is a bios. Then your time is > > likely better spent with Tianocore or something than with the > > kernel. > > shudder. I like embedded systems because the *don't* have a bios. Then you're into scenarios like I have with my laptop, where - those of you who check the nightly build results will have noticed - one of my serial ports doesn't always exist. That's because the ACPI data in the BIOS is *wrong*. It reports that it has been enabled when it hasn't, and the disassembled byte code is at fault here. The fix? God knows. As far as I'm concerned as a user, or even as an OS developer, it's unfixable without getting the ACPI data structures changed, and that's not something I can do. Do you really want that on ARM? Given the fiasco with the location of the registers, are you sure you want to place more trust in that direction? Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling to know that you might have to work out some way to patch vendor supplied bytecode?