Dear Deepak Saxena,
> commit 341764495180a712b9aaccfa0479b2ff7e44e35b
> Author: Deepak Saxena
> Date: Mon Dec 6 15:52:07 2010 -0800
>
> Honor /memory/reg node in DTB files
>
> This patch adds code to the bootm path to check if a valid
> /memory/reg node exists in the DTB file a
Dear Deepak Saxena,
In message <4d026bb2.6020...@mentor.com> you wrote:
> On 12/08/2010 02:34 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
> >
> > I guess we can argue that the normal situation is that U-Boot will
> > know how to update the DT such as needed to boot the OS. So what we
> > are dealing with is a sm
On 12/08/2010 02:34 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
> I guess we can argue that the normal situation is that U-Boot will
> know how to update the DT such as needed to boot the OS. So what we
> are dealing with is a small percentage of cases where we need special
> behaviour, and where it may be accept
Dear Dan,
In message <750641c9-dc97-4923-b337-05a2f1bc9...@digitaldans.com> you wrote:
>
> Yes, I'm sometimes pleased :-)
Good :-)
> > My current thinking is to introduce something like .
>
> Well, that is pretty cool.
>
> > dt_skip=memory,mac-address
>
> Do we have to write a
On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:34 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> "You can please all the people some of the time and some of the people
> all of the time but you can't please all the people all of the time."
Yes, I'm sometimes pleased :-)
> My current thinking is to introduce something like .
Well
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 23:34 +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Dan,
>
> In message <0ddcbda1-188f-433d-bdcc-5fdcf709a...@digitaldans.com> you wrote:
> >
> > > If you want to make this switchable at runtime, then we should
> > > probably use an environment setting.
> >
> > I experimented with thi
Dear Dan,
In message <0ddcbda1-188f-433d-bdcc-5fdcf709a...@digitaldans.com> you wrote:
>
> > If you want to make this switchable at runtime, then we should
> > probably use an environment setting.
>
> I experimented with this, but could never determine the
> best way to cover all behavior. Do w
Hi Wolfgang.
On Dec 8, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> If you want to make this switchable at runtime, then we should
> probably use an environment setting.
I experimented with this, but could never determine the
best way to cover all behavior. Do we have a variable that
indicates "do
Dear Hollis,
In message <4cfff3c4.20...@mentor.com> you wrote:
>
> I think the current way that u-boot updates the memory node is valuable
> for other use cases. In particular, it is very convenient for single-OS
> systems. Our goal is to avoid affecting those use cases.
> > I dislike the idea t
On 12/08/2010 12:53 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Hollis Blanchard,
>
> In message<4cffcec1.6000...@mentor.com> you wrote:
>> On 12/07/2010 11:09 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>> There are many board vendors who shipt boards with different
>>> configurations - with or without NAND flash; with or wit
Dear Deepak Saxena,
In message <4cffd57c.1010...@mentor.com> you wrote:
>
> > Please explain: you can use the DT to tell Linux (or other OS) how
> > much memory they shoulduse, but you cannot use the same mechanism to
> > pass the same information to U-Boot?
>
> I'm not against U-Boot using this
Dear Hollis Blanchard,
In message <4cffcec1.6000...@mentor.com> you wrote:
> On 12/07/2010 11:09 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > There are many board vendors who shipt boards with different
> > configurations - with or without NAND flash; with or without other
> > peripherals like CAN contollers, LCD
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:22:59 -0800
Dan Malek wrote:
>
> On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>
> > Probably want to complain to the user if reg is invalid and not
> > zero/missing.
>
> I think you guys are making this too complicated.
> There are many ways to pass stupid mistakes vi
On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> Probably want to complain to the user if reg is invalid and not
> zero/missing.
I think you guys are making this too complicated.
There are many ways to pass stupid mistakes via
a device tree, don't get carried away trying to single
out this one
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:59:44 -0800
Deepak Saxena wrote:
> On 12/07/2010 01:22 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:56:26 -0800
> > Deepak Saxena wrote:
> >
> >> +/*
> >> + * Check to see if an valid memory/reg property exists
> >> + * in the fdt. If so, we do not overwrite it with wha
On 12/07/2010 01:22 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:56:26 -0800
> Deepak Saxena wrote:
>
>> +/*
>> + * Check to see if an valid memory/reg property exists
>> + * in the fdt. If so, we do not overwrite it with what's
>> + * been scanned.
>> + *
>> + * Valid mean all the following:
>>
On 12/07/2010 11:09 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> So far we usually had pretty static board configurations, and a static
> compile time description was all we needed. Some developers consider
> even simple extensions like auto-sizing the available RAM as
> unnecessary luxury that just inreases the bo
On 12/07/2010 11:09 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> There are many board vendors who shipt boards with different
> configurations - with or without NAND flash; with or without other
> peripherals like CAN contollers, LCD, etc.; with different LCD sizes
> and types, in portrait or landscape orientation,
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:56:26 -0800
Deepak Saxena wrote:
> +/*
> + * Check to see if an valid memory/reg property exists
> + * in the fdt. If so, we do not overwrite it with what's
> + * been scanned.
> + *
> + * Valid mean all the following:
> + *
> + * - Memory node has a device-type of "memory"
On 12/06/2010 10:52 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> If you define that the device tree is the "master" for information
> about the memory layout (and potentially other hardware specifics),
> then you should be consequent and pass make U-Boot process this
> information. We've discussed before that there
Dear Hollis,
In message <4cfe7fa8.2030...@mentor.com> you wrote:
> On 12/06/2010 10:52 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > If you define that the device tree is the "master" for information
> > about the memory layout (and potentially other hardware specifics),
> > then you should be consequent and pass
Dear Deepak,
In message <4cfe775c.6050...@mentor.com> you wrote:
>
> I am a big fan of having consistent and clear definitions of
> responsibilities; however, I think the model of having U-Boot
> handle the creation of memory nodes in the DTB does not scale
> cleanly to users configuring, deployi
On 12/06/2010 10:52 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Deepak Saxena,
>
> I am not sure this is a good idea.
>
> So far we have a pretty clear definition of responsibilities.
> U-Boot does the low level initialization, including the sizing and
> testing of the system memory. U-Boot then passes its re
Dear Deepak Saxena,
In message <4cfd863a.7070...@mentor.com> you wrote:
> commit 341764495180a712b9aaccfa0479b2ff7e44e35b
> Author: Deepak Saxena
> Date: Mon Dec 6 15:52:07 2010 -0800
>
> Honor /memory/reg node in DTB files
>
> This patch adds code to the bootm path to check if a va
commit 341764495180a712b9aaccfa0479b2ff7e44e35b
Author: Deepak Saxena
Date: Mon Dec 6 15:52:07 2010 -0800
Honor /memory/reg node in DTB files
This patch adds code to the bootm path to check if a valid
/memory/reg node exists in the DTB file and if so, it
does not override i
25 matches
Mail list logo
