Russell King - ARM Linux <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> writes: Hi,
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:50:35PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> My feeling is that we should just mandate DT booting for multiplatform >> kernels, because it significantly reduces the combinatorial space >> at compile time, avoids a lot of legacy board files that we cannot >> test anyway, reduces the total kernel size and gives an incentive >> for people to move forward to DT with their existing boards. > > On this point, I strongly object, especially as I'm one who uses the > existing non-DT multiplatform support extensively. It's really not > a problem for what you're trying to achieve. > Please, don't do this. afaik, the idea was to reduce the numbers of kernel to deal with. Unfortunately, this kind of restriction would increase it. Consider orion platforms. This would mean having to deal with 4 kernels (1 for DT, 1 for orion5x, 1 for kirkwood, 1 for mv78xx0). Dropping HW support because one wants to encourage people to convert their board file into DT seems weird. Doing this, imho, should even be called a regression. The DT conversion won't happen in an eye blink so non-DT kernels are still something we should take care of. > I think what you're proposing is a totally artificial restriction. > There's no problem with a kernel supporting DT and non-DT together. > We've proven that many many times. I prove it _every_ night that my > build and boot system runs - the OMAP LDP boots a multiplatform kernel > just fine without DT. I think it's true for imx too. iirc, one can build a single image for armv4/armv5 and one other for armv6/armv7 without having to use DT. Regards, Arnaud _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev