On 08/13/2013 06:49 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
>> That is one aspect (hardware standardization)... but it is more to it
>> than that.
>
> I have to deal with lots of embedded / non-PC x86 based systems. Worst one
> I encountered so far was a board where the VGA memory space was re-used
> for an
On 08/13/2013 06:49 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
That is one aspect (hardware standardization)... but it is more to it
than that.
I have to deal with lots of embedded / non-PC x86 based systems. Worst one
I encountered so far was a board where the VGA memory space was re-used
for an eeprom. The
On 08/13/2013 04:32 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 08/01/2013 08:50 PM, David Gibson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:26:47PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:37:36PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 08/01/2013 08:50 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:26:47PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:37:36PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Alternatively you may
On 08/01/2013 08:50 PM, David Gibson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:26:47PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:37:36PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com
wrote:
[snip]
Alternatively
On 08/13/2013 04:32 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 08/01/2013 08:50 PM, David Gibson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:26:47PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:37:36PM -0400,
* Russell King - ARM Linux [130731 13:22]:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:00:17PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 09:29:35PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > >
> > > I showed you two example solutions that could handle this use case
> > > without
> > > stable binding ABI,
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [130731 13:22]:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:00:17PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 09:29:35PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I showed you two example solutions that could handle this use case
without
stable
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:26:47PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:37:36PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com
> wrote:
[snip]
> Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get
> rid of
On 08/01/2013 05:18 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 17:26 -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get
>> rid of the board specific code. But x86 doesn't have any of it, why
>> should ARM?
>
> The reason x86 doesn't
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 9:34 AM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:18 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 17:26 -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get
>>> rid of the board specific code. But x86
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:18 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 17:26 -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get
>> rid of the board specific code. But x86 doesn't have any of it, why
>> should ARM?
>
> The reason x86
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 17:26 -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get
> rid of the board specific code. But x86 doesn't have any of it, why
> should ARM?
The reason x86 doesn't have it is because it carries three decades worth
of legacy
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 11:57:43AM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 07/31/2013 11:26 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get
> >rid of the board specific code. But x86 doesn't have any of it, why
> >should ARM?
> Well, I am curious
On 07/31/2013 11:26 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get
rid of the board specific code. But x86 doesn't have any of it, why
should ARM?
Well, I am curious whether that will stay that way once x86 is truly
moving into the embedded
On 07/31/2013 11:26 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get
rid of the board specific code. But x86 doesn't have any of it, why
should ARM?
Well, I am curious whether that will stay that way once x86 is truly
moving into the embedded
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 11:57:43AM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 07/31/2013 11:26 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get
rid of the board specific code. But x86 doesn't have any of it, why
should ARM?
Well, I am curious whether
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 17:26 -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get
rid of the board specific code. But x86 doesn't have any of it, why
should ARM?
The reason x86 doesn't have it is because it carries three decades worth
of legacy
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:18 AM, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 17:26 -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get
rid of the board specific code. But x86 doesn't have any of it, why
should ARM?
The
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 9:34 AM, jonsm...@gmail.com jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:18 AM, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 17:26 -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get
rid of the
On 08/01/2013 05:18 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 17:26 -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get
rid of the board specific code. But x86 doesn't have any of it, why
should ARM?
The reason x86 doesn't have it is
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:26:47PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:37:36PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com
wrote:
[snip]
Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:37:36PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> wrote:
>> > However, if we go back to the idea that DT is supposed to describe the
>> > hardware,
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:37:36PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
> > However, if we go back to the idea that DT is supposed to describe the
> > hardware, _and_ that the way to describe that hardware is well defined
> > and
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:00:17PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 09:29:35PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> >
>> > I showed you two example solutions that could handle this use case without
>> > stable
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:00:17PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 09:29:35PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >
> > I showed you two example solutions that could handle this use case without
> > stable binding ABI, just to prove that b) is not the only option (even if
> >
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 09:29:35PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>
> I showed you two example solutions that could handle this use case without
> stable binding ABI, just to prove that b) is not the only option (even if
> it's the best one, which I continue to agree on, don't get me wrong).
You
On Wednesday 31 of July 2013 21:12:09 Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:23:35PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > I said it many, many times, that a) and b) I proposed are just two
> > extremes. It is unlikely that an extreme solution will be the best
> > option to choose. I am
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:23:35PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>
> I said it many, many times, that a) and b) I proposed are just two extremes.
> It is unlikely that an extreme solution will be the best option to choose. I
> am strongly for something in the middle, just like I wrote in several of
On Wednesday 31 of July 2013 17:07:19 Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:59:59PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > On Wednesday 31 of July 2013 12:37:37 Maxime Bizon wrote:
> > > Board files are C code anyone has the skill to edit/understand/refactor.
> > > Moving to DT and keep them
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:59:59PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 of July 2013 12:37:37 Maxime Bizon wrote:
> >
> > Board files are C code anyone has the skill to edit/understand/refactor.
> > Moving to DT and keep them in tree tightly coupled with the kernel
> > version just adds
On Wednesday 31 of July 2013 12:37:37 Maxime Bizon wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-07-27 at 11:51 -0700, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > Well, it depends on how we use the DT. There are (at least) two possible
> >
> > usage scenarios:
> > a) using DT as direct replacement for board files - this means that you
> >
On Sat, 2013-07-27 at 11:51 -0700, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Well, it depends on how we use the DT. There are (at least) two possible
> usage scenarios:
>
> a) using DT as direct replacement for board files - this means that you
> are free to say that DTSes are strictly coupled with kernel
On Sat, 2013-07-27 at 11:51 -0700, Tomasz Figa wrote:
Well, it depends on how we use the DT. There are (at least) two possible
usage scenarios:
a) using DT as direct replacement for board files - this means that you
are free to say that DTSes are strictly coupled with kernel version
On Wednesday 31 of July 2013 12:37:37 Maxime Bizon wrote:
On Sat, 2013-07-27 at 11:51 -0700, Tomasz Figa wrote:
Well, it depends on how we use the DT. There are (at least) two possible
usage scenarios:
a) using DT as direct replacement for board files - this means that you
are
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:59:59PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
On Wednesday 31 of July 2013 12:37:37 Maxime Bizon wrote:
Board files are C code anyone has the skill to edit/understand/refactor.
Moving to DT and keep them in tree tightly coupled with the kernel
version just adds another
On Wednesday 31 of July 2013 17:07:19 Richard Cochran wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:59:59PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
On Wednesday 31 of July 2013 12:37:37 Maxime Bizon wrote:
Board files are C code anyone has the skill to edit/understand/refactor.
Moving to DT and keep them in tree
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:23:35PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I said it many, many times, that a) and b) I proposed are just two extremes.
It is unlikely that an extreme solution will be the best option to choose. I
am strongly for something in the middle, just like I wrote in several of my
On Wednesday 31 of July 2013 21:12:09 Richard Cochran wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:23:35PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I said it many, many times, that a) and b) I proposed are just two
extremes. It is unlikely that an extreme solution will be the best
option to choose. I am strongly for
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 09:29:35PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I showed you two example solutions that could handle this use case without
stable binding ABI, just to prove that b) is not the only option (even if
it's the best one, which I continue to agree on, don't get me wrong).
You only
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:00:17PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 09:29:35PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I showed you two example solutions that could handle this use case without
stable binding ABI, just to prove that b) is not the only option (even if
it's the
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:00:17PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 09:29:35PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I showed you two example solutions that could handle this use case without
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:37:36PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
However, if we go back to the idea that DT is supposed to describe the
hardware, _and_ that the way to describe that hardware is well
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:37:36PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
However, if we go back to the idea that DT is
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:30:45AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 07/29/2013 08:15 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Gibson
> > wrote:
> ...
> >> I also think we should consider the option of having a simple and
> >> straightforward schema language which
On 07/29/2013 07:44 PM, David Gibson wrote:
...
> So, by way of investigation, let me propose an alternative
> expression of schemas, that I'm also not convinced we should do,
> but is possible and expressive. It's illustrative, because it's
> kind of the polar opposite approach to XSD: just use
On 07/29/2013 08:15 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Gibson
> wrote:
...
>> I also think we should consider the option of having a simple and
>> straightforward schema language which handles, say, 80% of cases with
>> a fall back to C for the 20% of curly
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:35:03PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> User acquires a machine running ARM Linux version 3.x, with u-boot
> >> and dtb in a read only flash partition. The board boots and works just
> >> fine. However, for his application, the user requires a new kernel
> >> feature
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:35:03PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
User acquires a machine running ARM Linux version 3.x, with u-boot
and dtb in a read only flash partition. The board boots and works just
fine. However, for his application, the user requires a new kernel
feature that appeared
On 07/29/2013 08:15 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Gibson
da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au wrote:
...
I also think we should consider the option of having a simple and
straightforward schema language which handles, say, 80% of cases with
a fall back to C for
On 07/29/2013 07:44 PM, David Gibson wrote:
...
So, by way of investigation, let me propose an alternative
expression of schemas, that I'm also not convinced we should do,
but is possible and expressive. It's illustrative, because it's
kind of the polar opposite approach to XSD: just use C.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:30:45AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 07/29/2013 08:15 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Gibson
da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au wrote:
...
I also think we should consider the option of having a simple and
straightforward schema
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Maxime Ripard
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 03:19:03PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 11:12:53AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not really sure what effect on users this has. Maybe you should define
>> > "users".
>>
>>
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:15:12PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Gibson
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:11:16PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2013-07-27 at 21:28 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:25 PM,
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Gibson
wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:11:16PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Sat, 2013-07-27 at 21:28 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Grant Likely
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM,
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:11:16PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-07-27 at 21:28 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Grant Likely
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:45 PM,
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 05:14:25PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:20:39AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
>
> > > Clearly general purpose systems (eg servers, workstations, etc) with
> > > *full featured firmware* fall into category b. Linux already basically
> > > has
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:20:39AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > Clearly general purpose systems (eg servers, workstations, etc) with
> > *full featured firmware* fall into category b. Linux already basically
> > has stable DT for those systems - but the firmware is expected to do
> > lots of
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:05:13PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:51:06AM -0700, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>
> > Well, it depends on how we use the DT. There are (at least) two possible
> > usage scenarios:
> >
> > a) using DT as direct replacement for board files - this
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 08:38:52PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
>
> Right, we can and should do better. I got the beaglebone Ethernet
> working in mainline (not by writing the driver, but by complaining
> over and over again). I except that it will continue to work and not
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 09:31:23AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>
> I'm afraid this kind of use case will never be properly supported, DT
> stable ABI or not.
>
> Think about this: what kernel will actually be shipped in that board?
> Most likely, it will be a BSP kernel from the vendor. Does the
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:05:13PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Clearly general purpose systems (eg servers, workstations, etc) with
> *full featured firmware* fall into category b. Linux already basically
> has stable DT for those systems - but the firmware is expected to do
> lots of work and
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:51:06AM -0700, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Well, it depends on how we use the DT. There are (at least) two possible
> usage scenarios:
>
> a) using DT as direct replacement for board files - this means that you
> are free to say that DTSes are strictly coupled with
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 08:49:43AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 03:09:29PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> >
> >> Unless I totally misunderstood, the thread is talking about letting
> >> established bindings change
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 03:40:47PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 03:21:40PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> > So this is why I'm seeing patches just a short time ago removing existing
> > compatible strings from the DT descriptions and associated driver, and
> >
On 07/29/2013 11:19 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 07/27/2013 10:01 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Grant Likely
wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Arend van Spriel
wrote:
Let's see how many people go and scream if I say this: Too bad .dts
files
are not
On 07/27/2013 10:01 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
Let's see how many people go and scream if I say this: Too bad .dts files
are not done using XML format as DT bindings could be
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 03:19:03PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 11:12:53AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>
> > I'm not really sure what effect on users this has. Maybe you should define
> > "users".
>
> ...
>
> > Care to explain this reasoning?
>
> Use Case
>
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 03:19:03PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 11:12:53AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I'm not really sure what effect on users this has. Maybe you should define
users.
...
Care to explain this reasoning?
Use Case
User
On 07/27/2013 10:01 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Arend van Spriel ar...@broadcom.com wrote:
Let's see how many people go and scream if I say this: Too bad .dts files
are not done
On 07/29/2013 11:19 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 07/27/2013 10:01 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Grant Likely
grant.lik...@secretlab.ca wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Arend van Spriel
ar...@broadcom.com wrote:
Let's see how many people go and scream
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 03:40:47PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 03:21:40PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
So this is why I'm seeing patches just a short time ago removing existing
compatible strings from the DT descriptions and associated driver, and
replacing
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 08:49:43AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 03:09:29PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
Unless I totally misunderstood, the thread is talking about letting
established bindings
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:51:06AM -0700, Tomasz Figa wrote:
Well, it depends on how we use the DT. There are (at least) two possible
usage scenarios:
a) using DT as direct replacement for board files - this means that you
are free to say that DTSes are strictly coupled with kernel
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:05:13PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Clearly general purpose systems (eg servers, workstations, etc) with
*full featured firmware* fall into category b. Linux already basically
has stable DT for those systems - but the firmware is expected to do
lots of work and
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 09:31:23AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
I'm afraid this kind of use case will never be properly supported, DT
stable ABI or not.
Think about this: what kernel will actually be shipped in that board?
Most likely, it will be a BSP kernel from the vendor. Does the
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 08:38:52PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
Right, we can and should do better. I got the beaglebone Ethernet
working in mainline (not by writing the driver, but by complaining
over and over again). I except that it will continue to work and not
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:05:13PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:51:06AM -0700, Tomasz Figa wrote:
Well, it depends on how we use the DT. There are (at least) two possible
usage scenarios:
a) using DT as direct replacement for board files - this means that
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:20:39AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
Clearly general purpose systems (eg servers, workstations, etc) with
*full featured firmware* fall into category b. Linux already basically
has stable DT for those systems - but the firmware is expected to do
lots of work and
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 05:14:25PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:20:39AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
Clearly general purpose systems (eg servers, workstations, etc) with
*full featured firmware* fall into category b. Linux already basically
has stable DT for
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:11:16PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sat, 2013-07-27 at 21:28 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com jonsm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Gibson
da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:11:16PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sat, 2013-07-27 at 21:28 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
wrote:
On Sat,
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:15:12PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Gibson
da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:11:16PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
On Sat, 2013-07-27 at 21:28 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Maxime Ripard
maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 03:19:03PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 11:12:53AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I'm not really sure what effect on users this has. Maybe you should define
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 05:35:46PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 10:09:57AM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > 3.z kernel is free to alter the schema. But it will have to supply the
> > necessary quirks needed to keep those old dtb's functioning.
>
> The quirks
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 11:50:19AM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> "furture proof" is much easier to say that it is to do. We've been
> messing around with the audio bindings for three years and still don't
> have a really good scheme. It is pretty easy to come up with the first
> 90% of a
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Richard Cochran
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 10:09:57AM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> 3.z kernel is free to alter the schema. But it will have to supply the
>> necessary quirks needed to keep those old dtb's functioning.
>
> The quirks idea sounds
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 10:09:57AM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> 3.z kernel is free to alter the schema. But it will have to supply the
> necessary quirks needed to keep those old dtb's functioning.
The quirks idea sounds okay to me, if it can really provide forward
compatibility. In
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 03:39:56PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> There are many possible options:
...
Wow, you totally ignored the use case.
> Please note, though, I'm _not_ trying to convince you that this kind of
> solutions is good, as I'm not convinced either. That's why we are
>
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Sunday 28 of July 2013 15:19:03 Richard Cochran wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 11:12:53AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> > I'm not really sure what effect on users this has. Maybe you should
>> > define "users".
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Care to
On Sunday 28 of July 2013 15:19:03 Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 11:12:53AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > I'm not really sure what effect on users this has. Maybe you should
> > define "users".
>
> ...
>
> > Care to explain this reasoning?
>
> Use Case
>
>
> User
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 11:12:53AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> I'm not really sure what effect on users this has. Maybe you should define
> "users".
...
> Care to explain this reasoning?
Use Case
User acquires a machine running ARM Linux version 3.x, with u-boot
and dtb in a read
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 08:07:54PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:36:02PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Yes, lets, and remember the question was, why do I say that dealing
> with DT is such a PITA.
There are definite issues with DT (getting a good process for quality
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 07:37:48PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:40:18AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > We did have exactly the same discussion when the DT transition was
> > started - this isn't something that people only just realised might be
> > an issue. There was
On Sunday 28 of July 2013 10:56:52 Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:51:06AM -0700, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > On Saturday 27 of July 2013 20:31:01 Richard Cochran wrote:
> > > Frankly, I am really surprised and shocked at the cavalier attitude
> > > expressed here WRT DT bindings in
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:51:06AM -0700, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Saturday 27 of July 2013 20:31:01 Richard Cochran wrote:
> >
> > Frankly, I am really surprised and shocked at the cavalier attitude
> > expressed here WRT DT bindings in released kernels. Think about the
> > *users* of this code.
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:51:06AM -0700, Tomasz Figa wrote:
On Saturday 27 of July 2013 20:31:01 Richard Cochran wrote:
Frankly, I am really surprised and shocked at the cavalier attitude
expressed here WRT DT bindings in released kernels. Think about the
*users* of this code. Not
On Sunday 28 of July 2013 10:56:52 Richard Cochran wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:51:06AM -0700, Tomasz Figa wrote:
On Saturday 27 of July 2013 20:31:01 Richard Cochran wrote:
Frankly, I am really surprised and shocked at the cavalier attitude
expressed here WRT DT bindings in released
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 07:37:48PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:40:18AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
We did have exactly the same discussion when the DT transition was
started - this isn't something that people only just realised might be
an issue. There was a
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 08:07:54PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:36:02PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
Yes, lets, and remember the question was, why do I say that dealing
with DT is such a PITA.
There are definite issues with DT (getting a good process for quality
1 - 100 of 218 matches
Mail list logo
