From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/10] xen: arm: update multiboot device tree bindings. Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:23:31 +0100 Message-ID: <53CD0643.4010600@linaro.org> References: <1405688876.491.10.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <1405688900-11769-9-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com> <53C98BB4.5070302@linaro.org> <1405943128.25022.37.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <53CCFF1C.10607@linaro.org> <1405945096.25022.46.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1405945096.25022.46.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, tim@xen.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 07/21/2014 01:18 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2014-07-21 at 12:53 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 07/21/2014 12:45 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 22:03 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >>>> Hi Ian, >>>> >>>> On 18/07/14 14:08, Ian Campbell wrote: >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Julien Grall >>> >>> Thanks. I've applied patches 1..9 of this series. I'll resend 10 ASAP >>> with the change you've suggested. >>> >>> On my potential backports list I've got: >>> xen: arm: implement generic multiboot compatibility strings >>> xen: arm: /chosen/module@N/bootargs bootprotcol node is not deprecated >>> >>> I don't think anything else here is suitable for backport. Let me know >>> if you think something is (or isn't) >> >> I would also update the document bindings in >> docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt. >> >> The patch #9 looks the good one for this purpose. Minus the unspecified >> type example. > > I think it is acceptable to point people to the latest version of the > doc in the dev branch as the canonical copy. > > The latest version already needs to properly describe the mechanisms for > backwards compatibility anyway and trying to backport only the docs > updates which match backported bits of code is liable to get fiddly > quite fast and/or require new patches etc, I'd rather not do this. > >> BTW, I don't find anything in the documentation talking about bootmodule >> type detection by ordering. Is this intended? > > No, I should have done this and forgot, thanks for the reminder. See > below. > > Ian. > > 8<-------------------------- > > From f9e80ead57b9f739c3041fe5abc4b23c8f0eb18f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Ian Campbell > Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:16:31 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] xen: arm: document boot module compatibility based on > ordering > > Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell > --- > docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt | 8 +++++++- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt > index d967061..ad98bf3 100644 > --- a/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt > +++ b/docs/misc/arm/device-tree/booting.txt > @@ -23,7 +23,13 @@ Each node contains the following properties: > compatible string (if one applies) in addition to the generic > string (which must always be present). > > - Xen 4.4 supported a different set of legacy compatible strings > + Xen will assume that the first module which lacks a more With this change, it's not clear that Xen 4.4 doesn't support boot module ordering. I would precise Xen 4.5 and onwards. With that: Acked-by: Julien Grall > + specific compatible string is a "multiboot,kernel" and that > + the second such is a "multiboot,ramdisk". Any subsequent > + modules which lack a specific compatiblity string will not > + receive any special treatment. > + > + Xen 4.4 supported a different set of legacy compatible strings > which remain supported such that systems supporting both 4.4 > and later can use a single DTB. > > Regards, -- Julien Grall