From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com (e32.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.150]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e32.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B085DE10C for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:46:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e32.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2CAhXPY019454 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:43:33 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n2CAk974207484 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:46:09 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n2CAk85n032567 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:46:09 -0600 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:45:43 -0400 From: Josh Boyer To: Stefan Roese Subject: Re: [PATCH] PowerPC 440EPx/GRx fix memory size calculation Message-ID: <20090312104543.GB3788@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <49B58779.9040905@lebon.org.ua> <200903120905.11542.sr@denx.de> <1236845549.7086.86.camel@pasglop> <200903120924.13378.sr@denx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200903120924.13378.sr@denx.de> Cc: lebon@lebon.org.ua, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:24:13AM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote: >On Thursday 12 March 2009, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 09:05 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote: >> > Both is possible. Older U-Boot versions only passed the bd_t struct to >> > the kernel. For those U-Boot's the wrapper is needed. More recent U-Boot >> > versions support passing a device-tree blob to the kernel. U-Boot patches >> > the correct memory size in this blob. >> > >> > As a matter of fact, I never used the wrapper before. U-Boot supports >> > passing the device-tree blob to Linux since quite some time now. >> >> Yes, that's also how I use it on canyonlands... now, the wrapper could >> probably be used to look at the bd_t anyways, no ? > >Sure. Do newer U-Boot versions pass both the dtb and the bd_t? If not, the wrapper would have to look for one, then the other and not get confused. >> Either get the mem >> size from there or some flag or version in there can indicate if it's >> been "fixed". > >I don't think that we have some flag and/or version information in the bd_info >struct. And extending this struct doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Yeah, we've already had some issues pop up in the past where the bd_t wasn't correct for a board in the U-Boot version that shipped with it (like the acadia boards). There's not much that can be done to fix it. josh