From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Linuxppc-dev Development <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com>
Subject: Re: removing get_immrbase()??
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:33:52 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49EF9B50.7010904@freescale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5D0145E3-0A98-429E-8D53-1A8DF4216462@kernel.crashing.org>
Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> I disagree. If you update your kernel you should update your device
>>> tree (thus we have .dts in the kernel tree and not somewhere else).
>>
>> No. The device tree is a means to pass information from the firmware
>> to the kernel. It is part of the firmware. That the repository of
>> trees is in the Linux kernel for any boards which are not including
>> the tree inside a bootwrapper is a historical accident.
>
> I think its a point of view argument.
I don't. It is the responsibility of u-boot to produce a complete
device tree; what bits are in the dts and what bits are programatically
generated is an internal implementation detail. We are currently
hosting some parts of that implementation detail in the Linux tree, but
it is still a u-boot implementation detail. U-boot is perfectly within
its rights to generate the entire tree from scratch if it wanted to.
Just a few hours ago you were telling me that you didn't want to put
accurate information in the device tree because you wanted u-boot to
generate it instead. :-)
The reason we have standards such as ePAPR in the first place is so that
we are dealing with well-defined interfaces that can be used even when
the firmware is not U-Boot at all (but merely something that is
standards-compliant) and/or the kernel is not Linux at all (but merely
something that is standards-compliant). The downside to that is that
revising standards is a bit more of a pain than revising code. We can
do it if it's worthwhile, but we should try to avoid doing it gratuitously.
> I don't agree its part of the
> firmware, at least not part of the firmware we use (u-boot).
We have had many instances of certain versions of device trees being
incompatible with certain versions of u-boot.
All I'm asking is that we treat a mandatory dts upgrade as seriously as
a mandatory firmware upgrade.
>> Updating the dtb with the kernel just shifts the risk of
>> incompatibility to interactions between the firmware and the dtb. The
>> same backwards compatibility considerations when making kernel changes
>> that depend on firmware changes should be made when making kernel
>> changes that depend on dts changes.
>
> As I told Timur, I'm speaking of addition of new nodes and code that
> parses and expect those nodes to be there.
And what do we gain from this change in interface with the firmware on
hardware that is not exactly under active development? What problem are
you trying to solve? Why do we need to get rid of get_immrbase() (as
opposed to being less reliant on it going forward, and tolerating its
failure on platforms that may be virtualized and thus not have the
complete IMMR/CCSR)?
Will any of these new nodes need anything to be filled in by u-boot?
-Scott
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-22 22:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-22 18:38 removing get_immrbase()?? Kumar Gala
2009-04-22 19:35 ` Timur Tabi
2009-04-22 20:16 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-22 20:16 ` Timur Tabi
2009-04-22 20:20 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-22 21:31 ` Kumar Gala
2009-04-22 21:33 ` Timur Tabi
2009-04-22 21:39 ` Kumar Gala
2009-04-22 21:46 ` Timur Tabi
2009-04-22 21:54 ` Kumar Gala
2009-04-22 21:57 ` Timur Tabi
2009-04-22 22:07 ` Kumar Gala
2009-04-22 22:00 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-22 22:00 ` Timur Tabi
2009-04-23 13:54 ` Grant Likely
2009-04-22 21:38 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-22 21:55 ` Kumar Gala
2009-04-22 22:33 ` Scott Wood [this message]
2009-04-23 0:03 ` Timur Tabi
2009-04-23 2:26 ` David Gibson
2009-04-23 3:36 ` Kumar Gala
2009-04-23 4:06 ` David Gibson
2009-04-23 4:41 ` Kumar Gala
2009-04-28 4:12 ` David Gibson
2009-04-28 13:48 ` Timur Tabi
2009-04-23 13:07 ` Timur Tabi
2009-04-23 15:56 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-23 13:02 ` Timur Tabi
2009-04-23 13:50 ` Anton Vorontsov
2009-04-23 14:02 ` Timur Tabi
2009-04-23 14:06 ` Kumar Gala
2009-04-23 14:09 ` Timur Tabi
2009-04-24 14:40 ` Wrobel Heinz-R39252
2009-04-23 14:13 ` Anton Vorontsov
2009-04-23 16:00 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-23 16:54 ` Anton Vorontsov
2009-04-23 17:03 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-23 17:26 ` Anton Vorontsov
2009-04-23 17:59 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-28 4:25 ` David Gibson
2009-04-28 4:21 ` David Gibson
2009-04-23 13:53 ` Grant Likely
2009-04-23 14:03 ` Anton Vorontsov
2009-04-28 4:26 ` David Gibson
2009-04-22 19:44 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-22 20:00 ` Kumar Gala
2009-04-22 20:30 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-23 13:53 ` Arnd Bergmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=49EF9B50.7010904@freescale.com \
--to=scottwood@freescale.com \
--cc=galak@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=timur@freescale.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.