From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.mailbox.co.uk (smtp.mailbox.co.uk [195.82.125.32]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAFB167A81 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2005 21:01:56 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <42511E89.9010704@jonmasters.org> Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 12:01:29 +0100 From: Jon Masters MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrei Konovalov References: <424ACFF1.5000403@bitsim.se> <111d2ae873d1bfee413409dfc4f2f064@freescale.com> <424BEDFC.8080300@jonmasters.org> <1112284541.23088.77.camel@cashmere.sps.mot.com> <4250EACF.1040403@bitsim.se> <42511D55.4040507@ru.mvista.com> In-Reply-To: <42511D55.4040507@ru.mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: Linux PPC Embedded list , Sylvain Munaut , Jakob Viketoft Subject: Re: Flat OF Device Tree for ppc32 [was: Platform bus/ppc sys model...] List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Andrei Konovalov wrote: > Should we rely on U-Boot to give that device tree structure to > the kernel? I think this is the best way to do it - there's already a ppc_md struct kicking around which is semi-meant for this kind of thing. > If I got it correct this is how the Freescale team plans to proceed. Good. It might actually happen if enough of us want it to :-) > Jon (Masters), are you going the same way? Yes, but I'm more than willing to pitch in with the Freescale guys if that'll get things done faster - they've obviously got more manpower. I wanted to get this thing done already! :-) > Anyone using arch/ppc/boot/simple bootwrapper with his Virtex 2 Pro > board? If we drop Virtex 2 Pro support in arch/ppc/boot and move to > U-Boot would it hurt anyone? I don't use it. I have a very simple bootloader which I use on our Memec based design - comes in straight off sysace and jumps at the kernel after doing simple diagnostics, avoided the need for porting an existing boot loader and it's reasonably able to cope with braindead Xilinx HALs. Jon.