Subject: Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs

From: "Mark A. Greer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:13:56 -0500

[email-masked] wrote:

> Looks fine except for a couple of points:
>
>  - BI_STRUCT is gone, it's BI_DEVICE and the first "type" field is gone,
> that is BI_DEVICE just contains tags without a header. There is no need
> to "know" if a given BI_REC is actually a struct or not, though if we
> still want to do that for debugging reasons, we can define this info is
> stored in the the high bit of the size field (and make sure bi_rec parsing
> routines ignore that bit when reading size)
>
>  - I'm not sure about the "EMBEDDED" dev type. I'd rather have a specific
> type for EV64260_EMBEDDED, and another one for 405_EMBEDDED for example,
> though this is mostly a matter of taste, we have enough room for types
> to define as many as we want ;)
>
> Ben.

Ahh, oops, didn't see this until after I send the second iteration the the
bi_rec's.
I'll send a third in a few minutes.

Mark

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/