From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:08:06 +0000
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 5/8] arm: Add boottime support for the ARM
 architecture
In-Reply-To: <20121122174041.D0B022007BD@gemini.denx.de>
References: <20121121101310.GL28265@gmail.com>
	<20121121135820.19D752003CF@gemini.denx.de>
	<20121121143928.GA28899@gmail.com>
	<20121121160501.D32D72003CF@gemini.denx.de>
	<20121121174856.GC417@gmail.com>
	<20121121191827.C33432003CF@gemini.denx.de>
	<20121122101433.GA4328@gmail.com>
	<20121122130430.DE34D2007BD@gemini.denx.de>
	<20121122160847.GD10986@gmail.com>
	<20121122174041.D0B022007BD@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <20121123100806.GL17471@gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

> > Ideally I'd like to keep it all as data, as it will save lots of
> > text parsing code in the kernel. Surely there must be a call for
> > passing data structures from the bootloader to the kernel. After
> > all, that's why ATAGs were brought about wasn't it?
> 
> Look at which ATAGS exist to see what they have been invented for.
> Read the previous discussions why for example pretty useful
> extensions like a tag to pass a MAC address from a boot loader to the
> kernel have never been accepted for mainline.  But you claim that
> trace data are different, and fit better?

I don't know the history.

> I consider it a design flaw to do such statictics stuff in the kernel.
> It does not belong there.  Such functions belong to user space.

I don't agree.

> But as mentioned before, this is actually off topic here.

Then stop mentioning it. ;)

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog