From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>,
"Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] arm: add device tree support
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:34:01 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201201272234.02700.paul@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1327701190-24822-1-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
> If compiled with CONFIG_FDT, allow user to specify a device tree file using
> the -dtb argument. If the machine supports it then the dtb will be loaded
> into memory and passed to the kernel on boot.
Adding annother machine feels wrong. Why does the board specific code need to
know about this at all? You already going it via a global variable, so can't
this be entirely contained within arm_boot.c? If the board file is involved,
why is it asking the user?
> + versatile_init(ram_size,
> + boot_device,
> + kernel_filename, kernel_cmdline,
> + initrd_filename, cpu_model, 0xffffffff);
This only works because we're currently too dumb to emulate the differences
between the two board variants.
What we probably want to be doing is shipping/constructing device trees for
the boards we implement, with an option to turn this on/off. Requiring a user
to invent their own seems deeply sub-optimal given we know exactly what
hardware we're emulating. A user that needs to provide their own FDT seems
like a fairly rare corner case.
This gets slightly more interesting when you have custom machine variants
(i.e. once we fix the object model, and have proper dynamic machine
construction). Even then I'd expect the FDT to be derived from/specificed by
the machine description, not a separate option.
Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-27 22:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-27 21:53 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] arm: add device tree support Grant Likely
2012-01-27 22:34 ` Paul Brook [this message]
2012-01-28 18:48 ` Grant Likely
2012-01-29 11:15 ` Paul Brook
2012-01-29 16:01 ` Grant Likely
2012-01-29 18:48 ` Andreas Färber
2012-01-29 21:29 ` Peter Maydell
2012-01-30 13:33 ` Grant Likely
2012-01-29 19:13 ` Peter Maydell
2012-01-29 20:36 ` Grant Likely
2012-01-30 11:36 ` Andreas Färber
2012-01-30 13:31 ` Grant Likely
2012-01-30 0:24 ` John Williams
2012-01-29 20:42 ` Edgar E. Iglesias
2012-01-29 23:54 ` Peter Crosthwaite
2012-01-30 13:40 ` Grant Likely
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-01-29 7:48 Peter Crosthwaite
2012-02-22 19:48 Peter Maydell
2012-02-27 17:38 Peter Maydell
2012-02-27 17:41 ` Anthony Liguori
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201201272234.02700.paul@codesourcery.com \
--to=paul@codesourcery.com \
--cc=edgar.iglesias@gmail.com \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=jeremy.kerr@canonical.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=rob.herring@calxeda.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).