Michael Ellerman wrote:

 >>  >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
 >>  >> +#define PROCRTAS_ROOT "ppc64"
 >>  >> +#else
 >>  >> +#define PROCRTAS_ROOT "ppc"
 >>  >
 >>  > Please don't do any pathname changes.  Even if ppc64 isn't 
correct it's
 >>  > what applications expect and what we should provide for a 
coherent user
 >>  > interface.
 >>
 >> Humm, ok.
 >> However, in this case 'ppc' (could be 32 or 64 as it is not specified)
 >> is more generic than 'ppc64'.
 >
 > But it's called '/proc/ppc64' right now on lots of machines, so you
 > can't go changing it.

Ok. No problem


 >>
 >> Indeed, however I can only test on CHRP. I'll remove the check in the
 >> upcomming patch.
 >
 > That should be fine AFAICT, you should probably just check that each of
 > the proc routines checks for errors - ie. just because you have an
 > "/rtas" node doesn't mean you necessarily have "/rtas/set-indicator" or
 > whatever.

ok

 >
 >> The patch also include a small code to create the /proc/ppc/rtas entry.
 >> Should this be done here, or somewhere in arch/powerpc/chrp/setup.c ?
 >
 > That code is almost entirely the same as proc_ppc64_create(), so I think
 > you should try and merge them - we want to minimise the number of
 > foo_ppc64() and foo_ppc32() routines we have.
 >

Ok.
proc_ppc64_create() is now locate in arch/powerpc/kernel/proc_ppc64.c. 
Maybe a new file could be created (arch/powerpc/kernel/proc_ppc.c) ?

Any other suggestions?

Just indicate me the direction, and I would provide others patches.

Regards