From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:16:08 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 4/5] [ARM] Auto calculate ZRELADDR and provide option
	for exceptions
In-Reply-To: <20100610090015.GD3422@pengutronix.de>
References: <1275550613-9553-1-git-send-email-eric.miao@canonical.com>
	<1275550613-9553-5-git-send-email-eric.miao@canonical.com>
	<20100610090015.GD3422@pengutronix.de>
Message-ID: <20100610091608.GA28305@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:00:15AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> What do you think about requiring r4 to be set to physoffset as I did in
> my series?  This way zImage would already know PHYSOFFSET and so didn't
> need to guess ZRELADDR.  OK, until most bootloaders are fixed we need
> to guess, too.  But at least this would provide a way to stop guessing
> wrong for the affected platforms.

That means it won't get implemented.  Look at the facts.  It's taken
_years_ (5+ years) for boot loaders to start passing a value in r1.
We then switched to the ATAG stuff, and it's again taking years for
boot loaders to start passing right ATAG stuff - and most of them don't
get it right.  Eg, lots of uboot are happy to print out the memory
information on the terminal as they start up, but don't pass memory
information to the kernel.

So if we want phys offset in r4, we better realise that it'll take
something like five years of nagging to get it in place, and even then
people will continue to use boot loaders which don't have support.
And if it's only necessary for a handful of platforms, I doubt anyone's
really going to bother - or even validate that r4 is correct.

You have a whole set of other problems - how do you cope with existing
boot loaders which happen to call the kernel with a value in r4 which
_could_ potentially be valid, but should not be used?  At the moment,
r4 could contain _any_ value what so ever.

Let's face it - advertising that "the kernel will eventually start using
r4" doesn't solve the problem either - we did that with the ATAG list
and we know the results from that.

Maybe the right experiment to try this time - if we want r4 to contain
a value - is to say that kernel 2.6.37 will require a value in r4, and
won't boot without it, and will therefore be incompatible with old
boot loaders.