On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:56:20PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 5:59:41 PM CEST Jeremy McNicoll wrote: > > On 2016-10-12 3:39 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:41:22 PM CEST Rob Herring wrote: > > >> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Jeremy McNicoll <jmcnicol@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>> These non standard DT entries need to be cast aside as to not > > >>> pollute the main device tree bindings. Without these essential > > >>> DT items the bootloader/LK will not pass control over to the kernel > > >>> and thus never boot. > > >> > > >> I discussed this with Stephen recently. I'm okay with leaving these on > > >> boards that have no chance of getting updated bootloaders to use the > > >> compatible string instead. Having to use dtbTool is far worse than a > > >> couple of extra properties IMO. I reserve the right to complain if new > > >> stuff continues to use these though. > > >> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy McNicoll <jeremymc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >>> --- > > >>> .../arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8994-angler-rev-101.dts | 1 - > > >>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8994.dtsi | 3 +-- > > >>> .../boot/dts/qcom/nexus6p_bootloader_bits.dtsi | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> > > >> Just put this into the board file rather than yet another include. > > > > > > The suggestion that I had was to have two .dts files: the normal > > > one without these properties, and another .dts file including the > > > first but adding these three for compatibility with the legacy > > > bootloaders. > > > > > > (sorry for the late reply, I thought I had replied already but > couldn't find that in the archives when I saw I still had this > reply open) > > > So I did it backwards from what you had suggested? > > Based on my discussion with, (cant seem to recall) my understanding > > was that we simply wanted to have these 3 bootloader specific entries > > in another file. > > Right > > What I would like to see here is two separate .dtb files, one > with the hack and one without it, so we have a migration path > for the machines that eventually get a boot loader with proper > DT support. So my main beef with this is that it is kind of onerous. The machines that require this will never get a bootloader change. So we'll be adding 2 dtb targets and only ever use one. It's much simpler in my opinion to just add the msm-id to the files that need it right now..... comment it with something like 'this is because of the Qualcomm braindead bootloader requirements' and move on. If there was any hope of a new bootloader for non-bleeding edge boards, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you Arnd. But there isn't, and there won't be. Regards, Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
