From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frank Rowand Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] arm: boot: store ATAGs structure into DT "/chosen/linux,atags" entry Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:19:21 -0800 Message-ID: <56568849.5080103@gmail.com> References: <20150713131902.GH26485@atomide.com> <20151123144545.GD24147@pali> <20151125181644.GI2517@atomide.com> <17134653.86P3dFyQKK@wuerfel> <20151125210310.GT2517@atomide.com> Reply-To: frowand.list@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20151125210310.GT2517@atomide.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tony Lindgren Cc: Arnd Bergmann , =?UTF-8?B?UGFsaSBSb2jDoXI=?= , Pavel Machek , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Russell King - ARM Linux , Laura Abbott , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Will Deacon , Ivaylo Dimitrov , Sebastian Reichel , =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On 11/25/2015 1:03 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Arnd Bergmann [151125 11:50]: >> On Wednesday 25 November 2015 10:16:44 Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> * Pali Roh=C3=A1r [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=C3=A1r [151105 03:41]: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday 13 October 2015 16:37:46 Pali Roh=C3=A1r wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday 12 October 2015 13:45:09 Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>>>>>>>> * Pali Roh=C3=A1r [151012 13:29]: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday 12 October 2015 22:16:40 Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Pali, any news on posting an updated series with the comme= nts >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 s= eries. >>>>>> My concern is that those two patches are using the FDT as a tran= sport >>>>>> 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 w= ould >>>>> be nice to have some solution... patch proposal... something. >>>>> = Pavel >>>> >>>> Yes, discussion is going for a long time! So should I spend time f= or >>>> adding documentation to my solution (this is last one thing which = is >>>> missing)? Or my solution is wrong and somebody else will propose n= ew? >>>> I do not want to spend time on something which will be rejected an= d >>>> discarded. >>> >>> At least I don't have better solutions in mind. >> >> I would be happier if we could restrict this as much as possible to = the >> boards that need it, as an opt-in. That way it doesn't become an ABI The feature (in whatever form it takes) should be definitely be highly restricted and marked as deprecated. >> for people that don't already rely in this information. How about >> adding a check the code adds the linux,atags property to do it >> only for a whitelist of board numbers? >=20 > Or populate /proc/atags only for the ones that need it from machine > specific init_early? This is circling back to the first comment from Russell King where he suggested a legacy file for the N900 which calls save_atags(): Are the ATAGs at a fixed address on the N900? Can that be handled = in some kind of legacy file for the N900 which calls save_atags() on i= t, so we don't end up introducing yet more stuff that we have to maintain= into the distant future? If not, what about copying a known working ata= g structure into a legacy file for the N900? It seems to me that patches 1, 2, 4, and 5 could be replaced by this approach. Regards, =46rank