Dear Deepak Saxena,
commit 341764495180a712b9aaccfa0479b2ff7e44e35b
Author: Deepak Saxena deepak_sax...@mentor.com
Date: Mon Dec 6 15:52:07 2010 -0800
Honor /memory/reg node in DTB files
This patch adds code to the bootm path to check if a valid
/memory/reg node exists
Dear Deepak Saxena,
In message 4d026bb2.6020...@mentor.com you wrote:
On 12/08/2010 02:34 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
I guess we can argue that the normal situation is that U-Boot will
know how to update the DT such as needed to boot the OS. So what we
are dealing with is a small
On 12/08/2010 02:34 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
I guess we can argue that the normal situation is that U-Boot will
know how to update the DT such as needed to boot the OS. So what we
are dealing with is a small percentage of cases where we need special
behaviour, and where it may be acceptable
Dear Dan,
In message 750641c9-dc97-4923-b337-05a2f1bc9...@digitaldans.com you wrote:
Yes, I'm sometimes pleased :-)
Good :-)
My current thinking is to introduce something like .
Well, that is pretty cool.
dt_skip=memory,mac-address
Do we have to write a parser now,
On 12/07/2010 11:09 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
There are many board vendors who shipt boards with different
configurations - with or without NAND flash; with or without other
peripherals like CAN contollers, LCD, etc.; with different LCD sizes
and types, in portrait or landscape orientation,
On 12/07/2010 11:09 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
So far we usually had pretty static board configurations, and a static
compile time description was all we needed. Some developers consider
even simple extensions like auto-sizing the available RAM as
unnecessary luxury that just inreases the boot
On 12/07/2010 01:22 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:56:26 -0800
Deepak Saxena deepak_sax...@mentor.com wrote:
+/*
+ * Check to see if an valid memory/reg property exists
+ * in the fdt. If so, we do not overwrite it with what's
+ * been scanned.
+ *
+ * Valid mean all the
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:59:44 -0800
Deepak Saxena deepak_sax...@mentor.com wrote:
On 12/07/2010 01:22 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:56:26 -0800
Deepak Saxena deepak_sax...@mentor.com wrote:
+/*
+ * Check to see if an valid memory/reg property exists
+ * in the fdt. If
On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
Probably want to complain to the user if reg is invalid and not
zero/missing.
I think you guys are making this too complicated.
There are many ways to pass stupid mistakes via
a device tree, don't get carried away trying to single
out this one
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:22:59 -0800
Dan Malek ppc6...@digitaldans.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
Probably want to complain to the user if reg is invalid and not
zero/missing.
I think you guys are making this too complicated.
There are many ways to pass
Dear Hollis Blanchard,
In message 4cffcec1.6000...@mentor.com you wrote:
On 12/07/2010 11:09 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
There are many board vendors who shipt boards with different
configurations - with or without NAND flash; with or without other
peripherals like CAN contollers, LCD, etc.;
Dear Deepak Saxena,
In message 4cffd57c.1010...@mentor.com you wrote:
Please explain: you can use the DT to tell Linux (or other OS) how
much memory they shoulduse, but you cannot use the same mechanism to
pass the same information to U-Boot?
I'm not against U-Boot using this
On 12/08/2010 12:53 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Hollis Blanchard,
In message4cffcec1.6000...@mentor.com you wrote:
On 12/07/2010 11:09 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
There are many board vendors who shipt boards with different
configurations - with or without NAND flash; with or without other
Dear Hollis,
In message 4cfff3c4.20...@mentor.com you wrote:
I think the current way that u-boot updates the memory node is valuable
for other use cases. In particular, it is very convenient for single-OS
systems. Our goal is to avoid affecting those use cases.
I dislike the idea that
Hi Wolfgang.
On Dec 8, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
If you want to make this switchable at runtime, then we should
probably use an environment setting.
I experimented with this, but could never determine the
best way to cover all behavior. Do we have a variable that
indicates
Dear Dan,
In message 0ddcbda1-188f-433d-bdcc-5fdcf709a...@digitaldans.com you wrote:
If you want to make this switchable at runtime, then we should
probably use an environment setting.
I experimented with this, but could never determine the
best way to cover all behavior. Do we have a
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 23:34 +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Dan,
In message 0ddcbda1-188f-433d-bdcc-5fdcf709a...@digitaldans.com you wrote:
If you want to make this switchable at runtime, then we should
probably use an environment setting.
I experimented with this, but could
On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:34 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
You can please all the people some of the time and some of the people
all of the time but you can't please all the people all of the time.
Yes, I'm sometimes pleased :-)
My current thinking is to introduce something like .
Well,
On 12/06/2010 10:52 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Deepak Saxena,
I am not sure this is a good idea.
So far we have a pretty clear definition of responsibilities.
U-Boot does the low level initialization, including the sizing and
testing of the system memory. U-Boot then passes its results
Dear Deepak,
In message 4cfe775c.6050...@mentor.com you wrote:
I am a big fan of having consistent and clear definitions of
responsibilities; however, I think the model of having U-Boot
handle the creation of memory nodes in the DTB does not scale
cleanly to users configuring, deploying,
Dear Hollis,
In message 4cfe7fa8.2030...@mentor.com you wrote:
On 12/06/2010 10:52 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
If you define that the device tree is the master for information
about the memory layout (and potentially other hardware specifics),
then you should be consequent and pass make
On 12/06/2010 10:52 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
If you define that the device tree is the master for information
about the memory layout (and potentially other hardware specifics),
then you should be consequent and pass make U-Boot process this
information. We've discussed before that there are
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:56:26 -0800
Deepak Saxena deepak_sax...@mentor.com wrote:
+/*
+ * Check to see if an valid memory/reg property exists
+ * in the fdt. If so, we do not overwrite it with what's
+ * been scanned.
+ *
+ * Valid mean all the following:
+ *
+ * - Memory node has a
commit 341764495180a712b9aaccfa0479b2ff7e44e35b
Author: Deepak Saxena deepak_sax...@mentor.com
Date: Mon Dec 6 15:52:07 2010 -0800
Honor /memory/reg node in DTB files
This patch adds code to the bootm path to check if a valid
/memory/reg node exists in the DTB file and if so, it
Dear Deepak Saxena,
In message 4cfd863a.7070...@mentor.com you wrote:
commit 341764495180a712b9aaccfa0479b2ff7e44e35b
Author: Deepak Saxena deepak_sax...@mentor.com
Date: Mon Dec 6 15:52:07 2010 -0800
Honor /memory/reg node in DTB files
This patch adds code to the bootm path
25 matches
Mail list logo
