Hi Will, On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 10:01:28AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi guys, > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 04:29:02AM +0100, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 03:34:09PM +0100, Matthew Leach wrote: > > > Also, I use a > > > different segment for the dtb rather than appending it to the > > > zImage; I think this approach would be better as it is less > > > restrictive, however a kernel patch is required to set r2 to the > > > appropriate address on entry to the new kernel. What are your > > > thoughts? > > > > I would prefer to avoid requiring kernel changes unless necessary - > > the kernels some of the boards I work with require DT since 3.5. > > However, I am happy to discuss this further, there certainly is > > merit to a clean implementation. > > I had a quick look at both the approaches and it looks like Matthew requires > changes to the host kernel (to load the dtb correctly) and Simon requires > changes to the target kernel (to pick up the dtb correctly). Could you explain a little why you feel my patch requires a change to the target kernel? > I would personally prefer changing the host, as the target should ideally > have no knowledge about the kexec. Given that kexec has not supported DT on > ARM so far and these patches have no affect on the existing ATAG mechanism, > I don't think there is a problem with making changes to the kernel. Agreed. > I also wouldn't like to hedge my bets on CONFIG_ARM_APPENDED_DTB staying > around forever -- it's intended as convenience for legacy bootloaders rather > than something that should be used in preference to passing the dtb via r2. Also agreed.
