Hi Nicolas, On 04.07.2013 19:28, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jul 2013, Daniel Mack wrote: >> I'm open to opinion and sugesstions :) > > What you describe above more or less fits the definition of what I > called the "impedance matcher". However it doesn't need to be part of > the kernel at all. But you should make it into a separate binary. > > Please have a look at the bottom of this post for a more comprehensive > description: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/242929
Thanks for the link. Interesting read indeed. The only thing I'm pondering about is that we already have generic loader code in Linux and a build system that supports a wide range of platforms. I don't know whether it's worth opening that can of worms again and re-implement all details about load addresses, compiler flags, device-tree parsing code yet once again. At least in terms of LOCs, we would certainly be better off doing it inside the kernel. But I generally second your opinion about pushing vendors to do it right, so I might give that approach a shot soon; there is no code yet anywhere I take it? Thanks, Daniel _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss