[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201501262144.09223@pali>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 21:44:09 +0100
From: Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
To: "Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com>,
Sebastian Reichel <sre@...ian.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: /proc/atags: Export also for DT
On Monday 26 January 2015 21:37:51 Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 08:16:52PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > This patch will cause that decompressor store full ATAG
> > structure into
>
> > DT tree ("/atags"):
> How about something a little more radical.
>
> Rather than trying to squeeze various ATAGs into DT, why don't
> we add a standard ATAG to contain the DT and pass that
> through into the kernel. This is IMHO how we _should_ have
> done the ATAG compatibility from the start.
>
> That means we could get rid of most of the libfdt in the
> decompressor, and instead resolve the differences in the
> kernel.
This sounds good. Now when I patched decompressor myself with
Revision property support, I wanted to ask same question: Why to
convert some part from ATAGs to DT instead to pass both ATAGs and
DT to kernel?
--
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@...il.com
Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists