From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: "François Ozog" <francois.ozog@linaro.org>
Cc: marex@denx.de, trini@konsulko.com, albert.u.boot@aribaud.net,
yamada.masahiro@socionext.com, xypron.glpk@gmx.de,
sjg@chromium.org, ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, u-boot@lists.denx.de, vanbaren@cideas.com,
morpheus.ibis@gmail.com, bmeng.cn@gmail.com,
bill.mills@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/31] passage: Define a standard for firmware data flow
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 19:19:05 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d3caa60fcbd1a482@bloch.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHFG_=X1DeBFkzwFBkirMkmHB0_OSa9OkQj+CvpG6dT5HZEWBA@mail.gmail.com> (message from François Ozog on Mon, 1 Nov 2021 09:53:40 +0100)
> From: François Ozog <francois.ozog@linaro.org>
> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 09:53:40 +0100
[...]
> We could further leverage Passage to pass Operating Systems parameters that
> could be removed from device tree (migration of /chosen to Passage). Memory
> inventory would still be in DT but allocations for CMA or GPUs would be in
> Passage. This idea is to reach a point where device tree is a "pristine"
> hardware description.
I wanted to react on something you said in an earlier thread, but this
discussion seems to be appropriate as well:
The notion that device trees only describe the hardware isn't really
correct. Device trees have always been used to configure firmware
options (through the /options node) and between firmware and the OS
(through the /chosen node) and to describe firmware interfaces
(e.g. OpenFirmware calls, PSCI (on ARM), RTAS (on POWER)). This was
the case on the original Open Firmware systems, and is still done on
PowerNV systems that use flattened device trees.
I don't see what the benefits are from using Passage instead. It
would only fragment things even more.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-01 20:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-01 1:17 [PATCH 00/31] passage: Define a standard for firmware data flow Simon Glass
2021-11-01 1:17 ` [PATCH 14/31] arm: qemu: Add an SPL build Simon Glass
2021-11-01 8:53 ` [PATCH 00/31] passage: Define a standard for firmware data flow François Ozog
2021-11-01 18:19 ` Mark Kettenis [this message]
2021-11-01 20:45 ` François Ozog
2021-11-02 14:58 ` Simon Glass
2021-11-02 16:03 ` François Ozog
2021-11-05 2:02 ` Simon Glass
2021-11-05 8:26 ` François Ozog
2021-11-05 16:12 ` Simon Glass
2021-11-05 16:31 ` François Ozog
2021-11-05 17:16 ` Simon Glass
2021-11-08 16:20 ` François Ozog
2021-11-10 19:37 ` Simon Glass
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=d3caa60fcbd1a482@bloch.sibelius.xs4all.nl \
--to=mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl \
--cc=albert.u.boot@aribaud.net \
--cc=bill.mills@linaro.org \
--cc=bmeng.cn@gmail.com \
--cc=francois.ozog@linaro.org \
--cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
--cc=marex@denx.de \
--cc=morpheus.ibis@gmail.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=sjg@chromium.org \
--cc=trini@konsulko.com \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
--cc=vanbaren@cideas.com \
--cc=xypron.glpk@gmx.de \
--cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.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).