From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: wmb@firmworks.com (Mitch Bradley)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:17:13 -1000
Subject: Request review of device tree documentation
In-Reply-To: <1276495772.2552.22.camel@pasglop>
References: <AANLkTilK4YkRMJqlcRDOAlGBzpdlZuSo9NF5NrRNocHT@mail.gmail.com>	
	<33BD8E86-9397-432A-97BF-F154812C157B@digitaldans.com>	
	<AANLkTilv6TtPZs0DAwd8JlSV_J3VvMsvtVVOOeQauOIn@mail.gmail.com>	
	<4C13430B.5000907@firmworks.com>
	<1276339529.1962.184.camel@pasglop>	
	<1276339684.1962.186.camel@pasglop>
	<4C13B618.1030006@firmworks.com>	
	<1276383132.1962.195.camel@pasglop>	
	<AANLkTimRV8u3gDNCAIlROJoPcKs7jFwj2na3ZDFOg3O0@mail.gmail.com>	
	<1276408087.1962.552.camel@pasglop>	
	<AANLkTikBjwuVvij8I91XaQgLfn8r_lZDrAsIBfJrHDBF@mail.gmail.com>
	<1276495772.2552.22.camel@pasglop>
Message-ID: <4C15C969.7020108@firmworks.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 23:13 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>   
>>> We use that to suck the device-tree, which we flatten, and then
>>>       
>> re-enter
>>     
>>> the kernel with the "common" entry interface.
>>>       
>> I don't think I want to do the same on ARM.  I'd rather have the
>> prom_init stuff in a boot wrapper, or have OFW itself generate the
>> flat representation before booting the kernel.
>>     
>
> But then it's no longer OF. IE. A compliant OF implementation provides a
> client interface API :-)
>
> This is going to be especially important if Mitch wants to keep OF
> alive.
>
> I suppose it could be done via a wrapper like prom_init, which flattens
> the tree, and sticks somewhere in a property the address of the OF
> client interface callback though it's a tad awkward. If well defined, I
> suppose Mitch might even be able to make his OF natively boot kernels
> that way but that's of course up to him.
>   

I'm willing to create a flattened tree.  I can provide both a client 
interface and a flattened tree.  The kernel probably won't use the 
client interface to any significant extent.

Way back in the misty annals of history, I dreamed of having a common 
interface between firmware and OSs.  That didn't happen.  Every OS 
insisted on defining its own interface and creating a custom bootloader, 
or in some cases a half dozen of them.
>   
>> I'm trying to constrain the number of things that could go wrong by
>> defining only one way for getting the device tree data into the
>> kernel.
>>     
>
> I understand, and the flattened method is the most versatile, I'm just
> pointing out the situation here :-)
>
>   
>> Right.  We don't need to use OFW/RTAS to handle this use case.
>>     
>
> Definitely not. It will depend on whatever hypervisor interface is
> implemented in a given environment. Though I do like the idea of passing
> precompiled bits of .dtb around for hotplug :-) We could make that a
> standard way of KVM to do things in embedded space.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben.
>
>
>