From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ben-linux@fluff.org (Ben Dooks) Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 11:55:15 +0100 Subject: Making ARM multiplatform kernels DT-only? In-Reply-To: <20120503141853.GC897@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <201205031350.35476.arnd@arndb.de> <20120503141853.GC897@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20120510105515.GC30103@trinity.fluff.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 03:18:53PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:50:35PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > My feeling is that we should just mandate DT booting for multiplatform > > kernels, because it significantly reduces the combinatorial space > > at compile time, avoids a lot of legacy board files that we cannot > > test anyway, reduces the total kernel size and gives an incentive > > for people to move forward to DT with their existing boards. > > On this point, I strongly object, especially as I'm one who uses the > existing non-DT multiplatform support extensively. It's really not > a problem for what you're trying to achieve. I object firstly on principle that you don't need the DT support to allow this, it could have been done years ago if anyone had taken the time to do it. > I think what you're proposing is a totally artificial restriction. > There's no problem with a kernel supporting DT and non-DT together. > We've proven that many many times. I prove it _every_ night that my > build and boot system runs - the OMAP LDP boots a multiplatform kernel > just fine without DT. We could have had the same for Samsung's entire range if a bit of work had been applied to do things like PAGE_OFFSET and replaceable IRQ controllers. > In any case, this is the least of the worries when you're wanting to > build multiple SoCs into the same kernel image. See my previous reply > concerning that. -- Ben Dooks, ben at fluff.org, http://www.fluff.org/ben/ Large Hadron Colada: A large Pina Colada that makes the universe disappear.