Thanks for your feedback Igor! 2011/7/1 Igor Grinberg <grinb...@compulab.co.il>: > On 07/01/11 12:17, Simon Schwarz wrote: >> Ok, topic ATAGS: >> I see three ways doing ATAGS init for SPL: >> 1. use bootm.c which means init bd correctly and add a bunch of #ifdef >> CONFIG_PRELOADER to it - maybe also to some others i don't have on the >> radar yet. > > While this is not clean, it might work good. > >> 2. Have ATAGS config in board config file and init it at compile time > > This is a problematic approach, because memory size, board revision, > serial number and may be some others are only known in runtime. > >> 3. Doing it like Heiko and copy the ATAGS config done by u-boot > > This one is probably the most clean way. >
The problem with approach 3 is that you need to copy the ATAGS image. Is there a way to do this without a debugger? If yes it really could be an alternative. If ATAGS and Kernel can be reflashed you can update the kernel without a bootloader update (That's the main reason why i switched to 1). > Regarding the device tree on ARM, it is still not fully functional. > Nevertheless, currently there is an attempt ([1] and [2]) to make kernel > work with both, device tree and ATAGS and if I understood correctly, > the ATAGS will have precedence over the DT, so closed source > boot loaders will still work. > > [1] - http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg128172.html > [2] - http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg129270.html So, IMHO an ATAGS implementation for now is the better choice - a DT patch then is, depending on the approach, not a big problem. Regards Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot