From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pavel@ucw.cz (Pavel Machek) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 07:51:46 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 5/5] arm: boot: store ATAGs structure into DT "/chosen/linux,atags" entry In-Reply-To: <5643E716.9080204@gmail.com> References: <1436214373-12969-1-git-send-email-pali.rohar@gmail.com> <20150713131902.GH26485@atomide.com> <20151012201640.GQ23801@atomide.com> <201510122225.12786@pali> <20151012204509.GT23801@atomide.com> <20151013143746.GJ23104@pali> <20151105114041.GC27908@pali> <20151105161756.GG3078@atomide.com> <5643E716.9080204@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20151122065146.GD26074@amd> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed 2015-11-11 17:10:46, Frank Rowand wrote: > Adding devicetree list. > > Thread starts at > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/354459.html > > On 11/5/2015 8:17 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Pali Roh?r [151105 03:41]: > >> On Tuesday 13 October 2015 16:37:46 Pali Roh?r wrote: > >>> On Monday 12 October 2015 13:45:09 Tony Lindgren wrote: > >>>> * Pali Roh?r [151012 13:29]: > >>>>> On Monday 12 October 2015 22:16:40 Tony Lindgren wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Pali, any news on posting an updated series with the comments > >>>>>> addressed in this thread? It seems that we all pretty much agree > >>>>>> what needs to be done. > > I'm not real happy with the concept of patches 4 and 5 in this series. > My concern is that those two patches are using the FDT as a transport > mechanism for a binary blob (the atags object). Umm. Ok. Do you have alternative proposal that works for everyone? I mean. This discussion was going for quite a long time, and it would be nice to have some solution... patch proposal... something. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html