Hi, On 1 August 2014 17:53, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:46:31AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote: >> >>>> + uart0: serial { >> >>>> + compatible = "sandbox,serial"; >> >>>> + u-boot,dm-pre-reloc; >> >>> >> >>> Shouldn't that be handled by the driver. It's certainly something that's >> >>> only relevant to the internals of U-Boot, and hence inappropriate to put >> >>> into DT. >> >> >> >> Hence the u-boot prefix. This is described in the driver model docs. I >> >> have found a work-around (which forces a driver to be inited pre-reloc >> >> if none is found) but I'm not 100% happy with it. >> > >> > I'm arguing that the property shouldn't exist in DT at all. DT is supposed >> > to be a pure description of the HW, and not encode details that are >> > specific >> > to the implementation of particular SW. The fact that U-Boot performs >> > relocation of its code during boot is completely irrelevant to a HW >> > description. >> > >> > As such, the issue isn't whether there is a u-boot, prefix on that >> > property, >> > but whether it's there at all. >> >> Right. And I've arguing that U-Boot should use exactly the same >> descriptions that are in the Kernel even. Those DTS descriptions should >> be common, applicable to both or neither, exactly because they do >> describe the HW and are agnostic WRT the SW that is using them. > > I also agree with this. We'll have to sort out the fall-out.
As mentioned I think I have found a way (with serial at least) to work around this - when the serial probe files, this series has code which forces binding of the node referenced by the 'console' alias. It's a bit of a hack but it might be good enough... Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot