Ohad Ben-Cohen <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Sjur Brændeland <[email protected]> wrote: >> I guess you would need to update the feature bits in remoteproc as well? >> e.g. something like: >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h >> index faf3332..148a503 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h >> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h >> @@ -296,8 +296,8 @@ struct fw_rsc_vdev_vring { >> struct fw_rsc_vdev { >> u32 id; >> u32 notifyid; >> - u32 dfeatures; >> - u32 gfeatures; >> + u64 dfeatures; >> + u64 gfeatures; >> u32 config_len; >> u8 status; >> u8 num_of_vrings; > > We will break existing firmware if we do that. > > Initially we thought it's a good idea to announce that remoteproc's > binary interface isn't stable so we could keep changing it, but at > this point changing the binary interface means pain for too many > people. > > I'm thinking that at this stage any changes to the binary interface > will have to bump up the binary version so we can still support older > images, despite our "unstable" policy.
Yeah, that's why I left it alone. Obviously, existing firmware won't set features >= 32 anyway, but you may need to come up with a method for future extensions. Cheers, Rusty. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
