Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 4/4] arm: SoC model for Calxeda Highbank

[Peter Maydell]

On 20 January 2012 16:25, Mark Langsdorf <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 01/20/2012 07:48 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 01/20/2012 02:47 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 19 January 2012 23:17, Rob Herring <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> On 01/19/2012 03:44 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>> On 19 January 2012 21:31, Mark Langsdorf <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>> +    highbank_binfo.board_id = 0xEC10100f; /* provided by deviceTree */
>>>>>
>>>>> Where does this number come from? It's not in
>>>>> http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/
>>>>>
>>>>> Is 3027 (==0xbd3) you?
>>>>> http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/list.php?id=3027
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Much of the data there is wrong as none of it is used. 0 or -1 is the
>>>> right value as those are obviously meaningless. A highbank kernel will
>>>> never be booted without devicetree and in that case this number is
>>>> irrelevant. This is the legacy boot interface and qemu really needs to
>>>> learn to boot with a separate dtb.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but the documentation even for DTB boot says we should pass
>>> in a machine number. If 0 or -1 are right then there should be
>>> some documentation that says so. I'll accept "mailing list post
>>> from some authoritative person [eg Grant Likely]" if necessary.
>>
>> Kernel DT co-maintainer is not authoritative enough for you?
>
> Peter, is that sufficient for me to send in the patch with a
> board_id of -1? Thanks.

It's still not clear to me from this conversation if the right
answer is "0", "-1" or "anything that's not a valid board ID
and not -1 either"...

-- PMM