lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/5] arm: boot: store ATAGs structure into DT "/chosen/linux,atags" entry
    * Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> [151125 11:50]:
    > On Wednesday 25 November 2015 10:16:44 Tony Lindgren wrote:
    > > * Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> [151123 06:46]:
    > > > On Sunday 22 November 2015 07:51:46 Pavel Machek wrote:
    > > > > On Wed 2015-11-11 17:10:46, Frank Rowand wrote:
    > > > > > Adding devicetree list.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Thread starts at
    > > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/354459.html
    > > > > >
    > > > > > On 11/5/2015 8:17 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
    > > > > > > * Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> [151105 03:41]:
    > > > > > >> On Tuesday 13 October 2015 16:37:46 Pali Rohár wrote:
    > > > > > >>> On Monday 12 October 2015 13:45:09 Tony Lindgren wrote:
    > > > > > >>>> * Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> [151012 13:29]:
    > > > > > >>>>> On Monday 12 October 2015 22:16:40 Tony Lindgren wrote:
    > > > > > >>>>>>
    > > > > > >>>>>> Pali, any news on posting an updated series with the comments
    > > > > > >>>>>> addressed in this thread? It seems that we all pretty much agree
    > > > > > >>>>>> what needs to be done.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I'm not real happy with the concept of patches 4 and 5 in this series.
    > > > > > My concern is that those two patches are using the FDT as a transport
    > > > > > mechanism for a binary blob (the atags object).
    > > > >
    > > > > Umm. Ok. Do you have alternative proposal that works for everyone?
    > > > >
    > > > > I mean. This discussion was going for quite a long time, and it would
    > > > > be nice to have some solution... patch proposal... something.
    > > > > Pavel
    > > >
    > > > Yes, discussion is going for a long time! So should I spend time for
    > > > adding documentation to my solution (this is last one thing which is
    > > > missing)? Or my solution is wrong and somebody else will propose new?
    > > > I do not want to spend time on something which will be rejected and
    > > > discarded.
    > >
    > > At least I don't have better solutions in mind.
    >
    > I would be happier if we could restrict this as much as possible to the
    > boards that need it, as an opt-in. That way it doesn't become an ABI
    > for people that don't already rely in this information. How about
    > adding a check the code adds the linux,atags property to do it
    > only for a whitelist of board numbers?

    Or populate /proc/atags only for the ones that need it from machine
    specific init_early?

    Regards,

    Tony


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-11-25 22:21    [W:4.090 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site