On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: > > > >> How about allowing platform hooks for single SOC builds. I mean having > >> this code under !single_zImage or something like that. That way we don't > >> impact the single zImage efforts and also allow socs to have all those > >> critical, vital bits enabled for the SOC specific builds. > > > > Absolutely not! Because if we start doing that, people will get lazy > > and no platform will ever work in a multi-SOC kernel. > > > > If your SOC require some fancy setup that is not shared by other > > platforms then please abstract that into the bootloader, or make sure it > > can be deferred later on. > > > There is nothing fancy here. It's an ARM security architecture feature which > OMAP implements. Have given enough reason about boot-loaders issues. I was not convinced by those reasons. Just push harder on the bootloader side. There is _no_ reason for the bootloader not to take care of this very platform specific issue. You can even do it into a standalone uImage that returns to u-Boot after it is done with its magic. > Is OMAP getting beaten up here just because it uses ARM security > feature and implements it's mechanics? I don't care if this is OMAP, UX500 or i.MX. There is a line to be drawn and this is just too bad if you are trying to cross it. Nicolas
