On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:07:31PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > On 6/12/19 9:56 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 03:48:06PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > >>Hi Matthias, > >> > >>Have these been out on the list for general review? I don't remember > >>seeing them. > >> > >>On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:57 PM Matthias Brugger <mbrug...@suse.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>Hi Tom, > >>> > >>>Please have a look on the following patches. > >>> > >>>Regards, > >>>Matthias > >>> > >>>--- > >>>The following changes since commit > >>>fc6c0e29a28f6b71dfb728b7f78e9e770f2cd218: > >>> > >>> Prepare v2019.07-rc4 (2019-06-10 21:27:46 -0400) > >>> > >>>are available in the Git repository at: > >>> > >>> https://github.com/mbgg/u-boot.git tags/rpi-next-2019.07 > >>> > >>>for you to fetch changes up to 38e58ff2b785b45e8c8ade8e23f916a1984016c6: > >>> > >>> ARM: bcm283x: Fix definition of MBOX_TAG_TEST_PIXEL_ORDER (2019-06-12 > >>> 12:23:46 > >>>+0200) > >>> > >>>---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>- fix complation error for CONFIG_USB > >>>- update RPi3 DTBs to v5.1-rc6 state > >>>- add defconfig for RPi3 B+ > >> > >>Why do we need a separate config when it's detected and works > >>perfectly well with the standard rpi_3 and rpi_3_32b configs? > > > >Good question. It came from Heinrich, so Heinrich? > > If we call the bootefi command without a OS supplied device tree the > U-Boot device tree is passed to the operating system. > > So we need a device tree which is a complete description of the > respective system. > > On the Linaro boot-architecture list there has been a lengthy discussion > with Linaro people thinking that it is the responsibility of the > hardware and firmware to provide the correct device tree and not of the OS.
OK, but on Pi aren't we passed, and pass along, the dtb from the previous stage? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot