+Tom and a few others who may have an opinion. Hi,
On 1 September 2015 at 10:19, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> wrote: > Hi. > > > 2015-09-02 0:41 GMT+09:00 Michal Simek <mon...@monstr.eu>: > >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Why not just add one more uboot property to chosen with list of IPs >>>>>> which needs to be relocated? >>>>> >>>>> You mean a list of devices needed before relocation? >>>> >>>> I mean something like this: >>>> >>>> chosen { >>>> u-boot,dm-pre-reloc = <&uart1 ...>; >>>> } >>>> >>>> And then just go through this list. I expect that you are looking for >>>> that property anyway. >>> >>> In this case wouldn't it need to list the simple-bus also? >> >> yes for zc702 case >> >> u-boot,dm-pre-reloc = <&amba &uart1>; > > I think this should be > > u-boot,dm-pre-reloc = &amba, &uart1; > > > <&label> is used for phandle, while &label is replaced with a string > standing for the full path for the node. > > > For example, stdout-path takes that: > > > stdout-path = &serial0; > > > > > >> >>> >>> We also use this with fdtgrep to remove nodes not needed for SPL. So >>> we would have to come up with a tool to make that work. At present >>> 'fdtgrep -p u-boot,dm-pre-reloc' picks out all the nodes we want (it >>> finds nodes with that property). >>> >>> I'm actually not sure that this approach is any easier/better. What >>> are the advantages? >> >> The question is if current solution which you are using is fully >> compatible with binding. Adding bootloader property to the HW node >> doesn't look like a best solution. >> On the other hand chosen node is the location where OS specific >> properties are coming that's why I have suggested to use it. > > > I like Michal's idea. > We need some work for fdtgrep, but I believe it is worthwhile. > > From Michal's recent patches (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/498609/), > I guess he is tackling on syncing device trees between Linux and U-boot, > and this is right thing to do. > > Inserting the U-boot specific property here and there > makes it difficult. Yes it is attractive. With this scheme we cannot put the properties into .dtsi (i.e. make them common for the soc). Is there a way around that or would we just have to live with it? If we go this way, who is going to write the patch?? Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot