From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:16:44 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 5/5] arm: boot: store ATAGs structure into DT "/chosen/linux,atags" entry In-Reply-To: <20151123144545.GD24147@pali> References: <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> <20151122065146.GD26074@amd> <20151123144545.GD24147@pali> Message-ID: <20151125181644.GI2517@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Pali Roh?r [151123 06:46]: > On Sunday 22 November 2015 07:51:46 Pavel Machek wrote: > > 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 > > Yes, discussion is going for a long time! So should I spend time for > adding documentation to my solution (this is last one thing which is > missing)? Or my solution is wrong and somebody else will propose new? > I do not want to spend time on something which will be rejected and > discarded. At least I don't have better solutions in mind. Regards, Tony