Dear Wolfgang Denk, a comment from your side would be nice - in what approach do you see the best chance for getting it into mainline?
Regards Simon 2011/7/1 Simon Schwarz <simonschwarz...@googlemail.com>: > 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