From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Mack Subject: Re: Appended DTB files for multi-machine kernels Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 19:57:53 +0200 Message-ID: <51D5B7A1.60609@gmail.com> References: <51D5A938.30607@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: stigge-uj/7R2tJ6VmzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org, Stephen Warren , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , Sven Neumann , Mark Brown , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Nicolas, On 04.07.2013 19:28, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jul 2013, Daniel Mack wrote: >> I'm open to opinion and sugesstions :) > > What you describe above more or less fits the definition of what I > called the "impedance matcher". However it doesn't need to be part of > the kernel at all. But you should make it into a separate binary. > > Please have a look at the bottom of this post for a more comprehensive > description: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/242929 Thanks for the link. Interesting read indeed. The only thing I'm pondering about is that we already have generic loader code in Linux and a build system that supports a wide range of platforms. I don't know whether it's worth opening that can of worms again and re-implement all details about load addresses, compiler flags, device-tree parsing code yet once again. At least in terms of LOCs, we would certainly be better off doing it inside the kernel. But I generally second your opinion about pushing vendors to do it right, so I might give that approach a shot soon; there is no code yet anywhere I take it? Thanks, Daniel