On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:34:35 +0200
Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 22:50:06 +0200
> Greg Kurz wrote:
>
> > This series is a sequel to the discussion on a patch from Ben's powernv
> > patchset:
> >
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/597153/
> >
> > Indeed, since the DT is
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 22:50:06 +0200
Greg Kurz wrote:
> This series is a sequel to the discussion on a patch from Ben's powernv
> patchset:
>
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/597153/
>
> Indeed, since the DT is a machine abstraction, it should definitely sit
> under hw/ppc and not in t
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:50:06PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> This series is a sequel to the discussion on a patch from Ben's powernv
> patchset:
>
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/597153/
>
> Indeed, since the DT is a machine abstraction, it should definitely sit
> under hw/ppc and not
This series is a sequel to the discussion on a patch from Ben's powernv
patchset:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/597153/
Indeed, since the DT is a machine abstraction, it should definitely sit
under hw/ppc and not in the target code:
- all machine types are forced to share the same num