Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 2 Dec 2010 11:40:16 +1100 | From | David Gibson <> | Subject | Re: [sodaville] [PATCH 03/11] x86/dtb: Add a device tree for CE4100 |
| |
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 08:44:45PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Mitch Bradley wrote: > >On 11/28/2010 12:53 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > >>>I wasn't aware of the OFW binding for X86. I will follow it once I find > >>>it. > >>Interesting, I though I would find it on > >>http://www.openfirmware.info/Bindings but it's not there... > >>CC'ing Mitch who might know where to find that. > > > >I'd be happy to work with people to develop a new x86 binding. > > So for the CPU node I have so far: > > cpus { > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <0>; > > cpu@0 { > device_type = "cpu"; > compatible = "Intel,CE4100"; > reg = <0>; > lapic = <&lapic0>; > }; > }; > > This one should match ePARP 1.0. David mentioned threads. I have just one. > No HyperThreading, nothing special. Should I just leave it as it or go > for: > cpus { > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <0>; > > cpu@0 { > device_type = "cpu"; > compatible = "Intel,CE4100"; > reg = <0>; > lapic = <&lapic0>; > > thread@0 { > reg = <0>; > }; > }; > }; > ?
Leave it as is. For hyperthreading there's a good chance you'll be able to get away with the simple extension we're planning to use in ePAPR 1.1, which would be: cpu@0 { ... reg = <0 1 2 3>; ... };
For, e.g. a cpu with 4 threads.
If more detailed per-thread information is needed then we or you might want sub-nodes one day. But even if we do that, we should allow them to be omitted in the single-thread case.
-- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
|  |