On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:27:24AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:25:21PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > So let's stop kidding ourselves and be coherent please: either we move > > device specifics away from the kernel, or we keep them together. In > > other words, the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader > > on a given board/device for distros to not even have to care about it, > > or we put that data back inside the kernel and dispense ourselves from > > all the added DT overhead entirely. But an hybrid mixed solution like > > FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong message. > > Just to thread jack a bit here.. > > We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish > on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific > file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots > with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change > depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets > mainlined and when, etc. Just be aware that on ARM at some point, the DT files will be moved out of the kernel source and held in an independent git tree; there won't be any intention of "kernel version dependence" - if there is then kernel maintanence has failed - and the use of DT has failed too. The stated point of DT is that it describes the hardware. If there's a dependence on the kernel version, then it's doing more than describing the hardware - it would be describing the kernel implementation as well. > Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my > embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same > thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and > initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots. Note that the combined zImage plus DTB today on ARM is just a stop-gap for boot loaders which provide only an ATAG based booting solution. It's not there as a long term kernel facility. It will probably be going away when the DT files are moved out of the kernel source tree. > Why? This is an embedded appliance product. We need to be able to > deliver firmware upgrades that *work*. We can't brick the board > because the bootloader and kernel get out of sync. The boot loader has > to be *simple*, it has to boot every past, present and future kernel > or we start taking risks that a firmware flash will end up bricking > it. If the DT file describes the hardware properly, then you shouldn't need to update it. Or if the DT file contains a bug (eg, because it doesn't describe how things are wired) then it's wrong whatever. But whatever. There's absolutely no problem storing the DT file separately from the boot loader, and also separately from the kernel itself (this is something that has been stated will be the normal way that DT will be dealt with when DT on ARM was first mooted.) If that's not the case, then we're really just playing one huge game with DT, causing lots of pointless churn for no benefit to people like you, and we might as well stop kidding ourselves that DT gives us any advantages what so ever. We might as well go back to putting this data right back into the kernel in C file form. -- 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
