On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:13 AM, David Brown dav...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
It is not pointless. Never it was in the cards to convert old platforms
first. The most problematic platforms responsible for the high volume
of changes that has gone in
* Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pi...@linaro.org [110613 13:41]:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Grant Likely wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Nicolas Pitre
nicolas.pi...@linaro.org wrote:
This is a resend of those patches with fixups after the latest changes
in mainline.
[PATCH 1/3] ARM:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pi...@linaro.org [110613 13:41]:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Grant Likely wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Nicolas Pitre
nicolas.pi...@linaro.org wrote:
This is a resend of those patches with fixups after the latest
Shawn Guo shawn@freescale.com [2011-06-12 16:34:15]:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 09:15:41AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
One thing which has been bugging me for some time is that the DT stuff
completely overrides the ATAGs. This is wrong with solutions like this.
We have a
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 01:22:19PM +0200, Petr Štetiar wrote:
Shawn Guo shawn@freescale.com [2011-06-12 16:34:15]:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 09:15:41AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
One thing which has been bugging me for some time is that the DT stuff
completely
* Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca [110614 15:02]:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Tuesday 14 June 2011 23:21:52 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
Otherwise, if the revision number is effectively non probable, then I
would guess it is the device tree's
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see a clean way of supporting this
that doesn't involve the kernel being able to parse the ATAGS as well.
FYI: I've dug up the patch from John Bonesio doing just that. While the
patch doesn't apply anymore,
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 03:09:02AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see a clean way of supporting this
that doesn't involve the kernel being able to parse the ATAGS as well.
FYI: I've dug up the patch from
* Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pi...@linaro.org [110614 00:04]:
+
+ for_each_tag(atag, atag_list) {
+ if (atag-hdr.tag == ATAG_CMDLINE) {
+ setprop_string(dt, /chosen, bootargs,
+ atag-u.cmdline.cmdline);
+ } else
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pi...@linaro.org [110614 00:04]:
+
+ for_each_tag(atag, atag_list) {
+ if (atag-hdr.tag == ATAG_CMDLINE) {
+ setprop_string(dt, /chosen, bootargs,
+
On Tuesday 14 June 2011 19:28:49 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pi...@linaro.org [110614 00:04]:
+
+ for_each_tag(atag, atag_list) {
+ if (atag-hdr.tag == ATAG_CMDLINE) {
+ setprop_string(dt,
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 14 June 2011 19:28:49 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pi...@linaro.org [110614 00:04]:
+
+ for_each_tag(atag, atag_list) {
+ if (atag-hdr.tag ==
On Tue, Jun 14 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
+ } else if (atag-hdr.tag == ATAG_MEM) {
+ uint32_t mem_reg_property[2];
+ mem_reg_property[0] = cpu_to_fdt32(atag-u.mem.start);
+ mem_reg_property[1] =
On Tuesday 14 June 2011 23:21:52 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
Otherwise, if the revision number is effectively non probable, then I
would guess it is the device tree's purpose to carry that information
somehow, right? Maybe this can be appended to the board name string?
That's what I meant with
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Tuesday 14 June 2011 23:21:52 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
Otherwise, if the revision number is effectively non probable, then I
would guess it is the device tree's purpose to carry that information
somehow, right? Maybe this can
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Rob Herring wrote:
On 06/14/2011 03:32 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 14 June 2011 19:28:49 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pi...@linaro.org [110614 00:04]:
+
+ for_each_tag(atag, atag_list) {
+
On 06/14/2011 06:50 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Rob Herring wrote:
On 06/14/2011 03:32 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 14 June 2011 19:28:49 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pi...@linaro.org [110614 00:04]:
+
+
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Rob Herring wrote:
On 06/14/2011 06:50 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Rob Herring wrote:
On 06/14/2011 03:32 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 14 June 2011 19:28:49 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Nicolas Pitre
* Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pi...@linaro.org [110612 11:55]:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
I don't see this as a sustainable way forward. If we're going to move a
particular SoC over to DT, we need to move the entire SoC over. We can't
do this half-heartedly.
And
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pi...@linaro.org [110612 11:55]:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
I don't see this as a sustainable way forward. If we're going to move a
particular SoC over to DT, we need to move the entire SoC
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:14:07AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pi...@linaro.org [110612 11:55]:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
I don't see this as a sustainable way forward. If we're going to
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [110613 07:16]:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:14:07AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pi...@linaro.org [110612 11:55]:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:14:07AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote:
I agree that we need to parse the user configurable ATAGs to support
existing hardware properly. Otherwise we have edit the
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Nicolas Pitre nicolas.pi...@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:14:07AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote:
I agree that we need to parse the user configurable
Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 06:42:16PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:52:17AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 05:38:23PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:21:31AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Grant Likely wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Nicolas Pitre
nicolas.pi...@linaro.org wrote:
This is a resend of those patches with fixups after the latest changes
in mainline.
[PATCH 1/3] ARM: zImage: ensure it is always a multiple of 64 bits in size
This
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, David Brown wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 06:42:16PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:52:17AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 05:38:23PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 06:42:16PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:52:17AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 05:38:23PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:21:31AM +0100,
On Sun, Jun 12 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
It is not pointless. Never it was in the cards to convert old platforms
first. The most problematic platforms responsible for the high volume
of changes that has gone in mainline lately are the modern ones, not PXA
based ones. So DT is going to
This is a resend of those patches with fixups after the latest changes
in mainline.
[PATCH 1/3] ARM: zImage: ensure it is always a multiple of 64 bits in size
This one is new and trivial.
[PATCH 2/3] ARM: zImage: Allow the appending of a device tree binary
Mostly John Bonesio's version with some
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 02:06:37AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
This is a resend of those patches with fixups after the latest changes
in mainline.
[PATCH 1/3] ARM: zImage: ensure it is always a multiple of 64 bits in size
This one is new and trivial.
[PATCH 2/3] ARM: zImage: Allow the
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 09:15:41AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 02:06:37AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
This is a resend of those patches with fixups after the latest changes
in mainline.
[PATCH 1/3] ARM: zImage: ensure it is always a multiple of 64 bits
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 04:34:15PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 09:15:41AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 02:06:37AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
This is a resend of those patches with fixups after the latest changes
in mainline.
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:21:31AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 04:34:15PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 09:15:41AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 02:06:37AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
This is a resend
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:52:17AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 05:38:23PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:21:31AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
What if your platform doesn't use uboot?
Add dtb parsing support with the help
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 06:42:16PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:52:17AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 05:38:23PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:21:31AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
What if your platform
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 01:22:19PM +0200, Petr Štetiar wrote:
Shawn Guo shawn@freescale.com [2011-06-12 16:34:15]:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 09:15:41AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
One thing which has been bugging me for some time is that the DT stuff
completely
On Sunday 12 June 2011 13:58:20 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Exactly my point - I have quite a number of platforms here which will
never be able to have a boot loader capable of modifying a DT blob for
the kernel.
One of the points of Nicolas' patch set is to allow existing boot loaders
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 04:15:23PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Sunday 12 June 2011 13:58:20 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Exactly my point - I have quite a number of platforms here which will
never be able to have a boot loader capable of modifying a DT blob for
the kernel.
One of
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 04:15:23PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Sunday 12 June 2011 13:58:20 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Exactly my point - I have quite a number of platforms here which will
never be able to have a boot loader capable of modifying a DT blob for
the kernel.
One of
On Sunday 12 June 2011 16:34:28 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
I don't think you're considering real-world usage scenarios, but instead
concentrating on the use issues. If you only do that you're boxing
yourself into a corner and will cause a world of pain for folk who would
just like the
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 08:57:51AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 04:15:23PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
But when you have both atag and DT and the atag overrides the DT, that
means we have incorrect information in the DT, and code might later
rely on that information.
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 05:01:22PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Of course it should override the device tree, I'm not arguing that.
All I'm saying is that we don't need to special-case this or support
both formats once the kernel is there as long as we move the information
into appropriate
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
One of the points of Nicolas' patch set is to allow existing boot loaders
to boot kernels where the hardware description is contained in a DT blob
encapsulated with the kernel. That's great but the way things are currently
setup, it means
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 08:57:51AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 04:15:23PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
But when you have both atag and DT and the atag overrides the DT, that
means we have incorrect information in
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:47:59AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
And we've ended up with a fucked up situation which is extremely
fragile, and actually makes me _NOT_ want to convert any existing
platforms to use DT in the least.
Agreed.
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:47:59AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
And we've ended up with a fucked up situation which is extremely
fragile, and actually makes me _NOT_ want to convert
On Jun 12, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:47:59AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
And we've ended up with a fucked up situation which is extremely
fragile, and actually makes me _NOT_ want to
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Nicolas Pitre
nicolas.pi...@linaro.org wrote:
This is a resend of those patches with fixups after the latest changes
in mainline.
[PATCH 1/3] ARM: zImage: ensure it is always a multiple of 64 bits in size
This one is new and trivial.
[PATCH 2/3] ARM:
49 matches
Mail list logo
