On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]> 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 .dts for each >> > > board >> > > to change the user configurable things, which is not nice for distros. >> > >> > You mean "existing bootloaders", right? >> > >> > Updated bootloaders should translate user configurable information into >> > proper DT records and pass the resulting DTB to the kernel separately. >> >> OMAP is one of the code bases where this really matters - they have a >> _lot_ of existing platforms with boot loaders which do the ATAG stuff. >> They also have a lot of code in arch/arm that needs to be converted to >> a DT representation. > > Yes, agreed. I just wanted to make the situation clear above, so people > aren't confused in believing that the DT data is always static. New > bootloaders should have the same ability to dynamically change some of > the parameters passed to the kernel. So the issue is not about existing > hardware, but rather about existing bootloaders. > >> With the current situation where you can have either ATAGs or DT but >> not both, they're currently facing either having to break all the >> existing platforms by ignoring the ATAGs _or_ keeping two copies of >> a considerable amount of data - one in DT form and one in its existing >> form. >> >> At present, DT can only be used sensibly on brand new SoCs where there >> are no existing platforms with ATAG based boot loaders to worry about. >> As things stand at present, even with your patch series, existing SoCs >> have no viable path to transition to DT. > > As I said, I'm now convinced that the patch adding a shim to translate > ATAGs into DT entries should be added to this series. I was reluctant > initially for insentive purposes, but your argument clearly tilted the > balance the other way.
John Bonesio was the author of that patch. John, can you dust of the ATAGs-->DT conversion patch and get it rebased to my current devicetree/test branch? I've picked up Nicolas' 3 patch series which includes your dtb append patch into devicetree/test. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
