* Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> [151125 11:50]: > On Wednesday 25 November 2015 10:16:44 Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> [151123 06:46]: > > > On Sunday 22 November 2015 07:51:46 Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > On Wed 2015-11-11 17:10:46, Frank Rowand wrote: > > > > > Adding devicetree list. > > > > > > > > > > Thread starts at > > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/354459.html > > > > > > > > > > On 11/5/2015 8:17 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > > * Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> [151105 03:41]: > > > > > >> On Tuesday 13 October 2015 16:37:46 Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > > >>> On Monday 12 October 2015 13:45:09 Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > >>>> * Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> [151012 13:29]: > > > > > >>>>> On Monday 12 October 2015 22:16:40 Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Pali, any news on posting an updated series with the comments > > > > > >>>>>> addressed in this thread? It seems that we all pretty much agree > > > > > >>>>>> what needs to be done. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not real happy with the concept of patches 4 and 5 in this series. > > > > > My concern is that those two patches are using the FDT as a transport > > > > > mechanism for a binary blob (the atags object). > > > > > > > > Umm. Ok. Do you have alternative proposal that works for everyone? > > > > > > > > I mean. This discussion was going for quite a long time, and it would > > > > be nice to have some solution... patch proposal... something. > > > > Pavel > > > > > > Yes, discussion is going for a long time! So should I spend time for > > > adding documentation to my solution (this is last one thing which is > > > missing)? Or my solution is wrong and somebody else will propose new? > > > I do not want to spend time on something which will be rejected and > > > discarded. > > > > At least I don't have better solutions in mind. > > I would be happier if we could restrict this as much as possible to the > boards that need it, as an opt-in. That way it doesn't become an ABI > for people that don't already rely in this information. How about > adding a check the code adds the linux,atags property to do it > only for a whitelist of board numbers? Or populate /proc/atags only for the ones that need it from machine specific init_early? Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
