From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nicolas.pitre@linaro.org (Nicolas Pitre) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 11:47:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [PATCH 0/3] patches to allow DTB to be appended to the ARM zImage In-Reply-To: <20110612151931.GK10283@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1307858800-16712-1-git-send-email-nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> <20110612112219.GD16318@ibawizard.net> <20110612115820.GF10283@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <201106121615.24059.arnd@arndb.de> <20110612145751.GA4013@ponder.secretlab.ca> <20110612151931.GK10283@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 08:57:51AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 04:15:23PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > But when you have both atag and DT and the atag overrides the DT, that > > > means we have incorrect information in the DT, and code might later > > > rely on that information. > > > > > > IMHO when we allow passing a DT to a kernel while booting from an > > > existing boot loader that only knows about atag, the code that loads > > > the DT should be responsible for updating the DT with the atag information, > > > not pass two conflicting sets of data into the actual kernel. > > > > I completely agree here. I /started/ from the position that ATAGs and > > DTB would coexist, and after extensive debate[1] my opinion turned around > > to it should be one or the other. Otherwise there are all kinds of > > questions about accuracy of the information and which takes > > precedence. > > And we've ended up with a fucked up situation which is extremely > fragile, and actually makes me _NOT_ want to convert any existing > platforms to use DT in the least. Agreed. I don't think that anything older than OMAP2 is worth converting to DT. The return on the investment is simply not worth it, other than for experimental purposes. Nicolas