On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 03:20:10PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 02:06:58PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote: > >> Current u-boots don't support device trees at all on 8xx. > > > > Yes, vanilla u-boots. I assume many of us use some u-boot hacks to > > actually boot with the device tree (no, not cuboots)... ;-) > > Fine, but don't expect misbehavior from out-of-tree u-boots to be used > as justification for the kernel ignoring device tree content. :-)
You got me wrong, maybe I wasn't clear enough: it wasn't justification of any kind. It's was just a remark regarding u-boot still not supporting fdt for 8xx (20 lines of code we're lazy to cleanup, write annotation to the patch and send it ;-). Regarding timebase issue. This issue isn't introduced by the u-boots. It is _Linux_ code that is buggy. I'm agree that ideally we should get timebase-frequency from the device tree, but if we'll start getting it from inside the current code, it will look like: ...linux setups tbfreq = cpu_clk / 16... tbfreq = of_get_property(.."timebase-frequency"..); You see? This is illogical, error-prone, and whatnot. :-) I agree, to fix this right way, we should: a) fix current u-boots; b) rework 8xx/ Linux code; and c) rework cuboot for compatibility; Until that happen that tiny patch is a valid bug fix, right? -- Anton Vorontsov email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] backup email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
