From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: grant.b.edwards@gmail.com (Grant Edwards) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 21:57:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Building kernel for more than one SoC References: <20140804201712.GK30282@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <53E8E469.9050807@atmel.com> <20140811205909.GC30401@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2014-08-11, Robert Nelson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Grant Edwards > wrote: >> On 2014-08-11, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 08:43:35PM +0000, Grant Edwards wrote: >>>> On 2014-08-11, Robert Nelson wrote: >>>> >> Now it's up to somebody else to decide if the price difference between >>>> >> a G20 and G25 is worth the engineering time to upgrade U-Boot and >>>> >> Linux kernel to versions that know about device trees... >>>> > >>>> > http://cateee.net/lkddb/web-lkddb/ARM_APPENDED_DTB.html >>>> >>>> Interesting. That would still require modifying U-Boot so that at >>>> run-time it detects the SoC type and appends the proper DTB to the >>>> kernel image, but it that may be less work than "real" DTB support in >>>> U-Boot. >>> >>> The idea of that feature is: >>> >>> - You take the kernel zImage >>> - You take the appropriate dtb file >>> - You concatenate the dtb file into the zImage >>> - You run mkimage on the resulting combined image to create the special >>> uboot format file for uboot to load >> >> The problem is now you've got a kernel image that won't run on both >> the '9g20 and the '9g25. The requirement is to have a kernel image >> that will run on either. > > Then, upgrade your u-boot to mainline, use the dtb, etc. You have a > lot of excuses. ;) Yep. Unfortunately, excuses aren't the problem. Cost (mostly opportunity cost) is the problem... -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Is it NOUVELLE at CUISINE when 3 olives are gmail.com struggling with a scallop in a plate of SAUCE MORNAY?