From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pali.rohar@gmail.com (Pali =?utf-8?q?Roh=C3=A1r?=) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:44:09 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: /proc/atags: Export also for DT In-Reply-To: <20150126203751.GK26493@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1403110464-29646-1-git-send-email-pali.rohar@gmail.com> <201501262016.52079@pali> <20150126203751.GK26493@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <201501262144.09223@pali> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Monday 26 January 2015 21:37:51 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 08:16:52PM +0100, Pali Roh?r wrote: > > This patch will cause that decompressor store full ATAG > > structure into > > > DT tree ("/atags"): > How about something a little more radical. > > Rather than trying to squeeze various ATAGs into DT, why don't > we add a standard ATAG to contain the DT and pass that > through into the kernel. This is IMHO how we _should_ have > done the ATAG compatibility from the start. > > That means we could get rid of most of the libfdt in the > decompressor, and instead resolve the differences in the > kernel. This sounds good. Now when I patched decompressor myself with Revision property support, I wanted to ask same question: Why to convert some part from ATAGs to DT instead to pass both ATAGs and DT to kernel? -- Pali Roh?r pali.rohar at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: