Machine ID question

Machine ID question

[John Linn]

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.

Machine ID question

[Uwe Kleine-König]

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/  |

Machine ID question

[John Linn]

> -----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/  |

Machine ID question

[Alexander Stein]

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

Machine ID question

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

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.

Machine ID question

[John Linn]

> -----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.

Machine ID question

[Alexander Stein]

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