From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 26 May 2016 19:25:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com ([209.85.192.193]:33159 "EHLO mail-pf0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27032729AbcEZRZEr6hr1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 May 2016 19:25:04 +0200 Received: by mail-pf0-f193.google.com with SMTP id b124so9547922pfb.0 for ; Thu, 26 May 2016 10:25:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gimpelevich-san-francisco-ca-us.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=poysibdLGyTYJuIrELs+DndAAFfg671MfqzzCgfhWjo=; b=wAOmpyiRFuv2YlBzomqsQPvj0avzlESod1GREdrVodBWLmy0Z/hpDfF9SjlLXUNSqd wy8dDLM4BVg0vN1UzxMHwIqh41I5w9GFYOeGvEqLcr7EvWLVw63+ie9LrTcvxGQe2+w4 hbLjVN2aWQqvjUfV4Imco/Q43WAUbUV5pUr0cuIZVnpvmN+of0zrxGfxTfo+Q7YuGT0k 9yj+6vmOprh/hrjMhLypjl7HKk8bjbBoW7VJe4trskh7VKGf7+s+5RAnL7fRD6i0u0V1 SUDP+Ir9NtEj1afspIx3K4vb4tFr57J3vCe1/0maibNSIncIocnm+Afng685atyRt99H UkjA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=poysibdLGyTYJuIrELs+DndAAFfg671MfqzzCgfhWjo=; b=Vnklu7XnTYEbBHUKHs0sSqdGdq8tCwVUAGiku8Qp5DoNlLJE59pfUhhEKTxD9fc92n fL/C4AnzaKf0UwyrId6cwLMXP23mTtIW4J1A/m6q4Rb5eMlIvD1HBgWwDlhvG+E6JgJX nJA091cDkGCiA4HRvP0hJynDKf1ug93aFQEBrM1jlg4XP9gVfLv09CfVyngayHIAEVy2 Yk0zYHjob0lqMxvb9ZwxIyuFRbdLMP/2DwNnct3ODyosPCPnU/53cKk4gQ8FZefLukSj dfQlpDp1vAoclDDFXqgNi2EAeZSa/xpwLyAIL8R821DEAlOEWFr8fgJIF+D7vAflhHTa 8Pvw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIV8tmo8hkcqZVD011A+ErOr2YGHt48uS+qEM9civv0KNbw7RdnMziq5Gfy02vmhA== X-Received: by 10.98.1.6 with SMTP id 6mr15908981pfb.155.1464283498512; Thu, 26 May 2016 10:24:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:645:c200:33:2447:a10d:9051:be13? ([2601:645:c200:33:2447:a10d:9051:be13]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 17sm7441740pfj.96.2016.05.26.10.24.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 May 2016 10:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1464283495.5020.16.camel@chimera> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Re: Adding support for device tree and command line From: Daniel Gimpelevich To: Hauke Mehrtens Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Jonas Gorski , Mathias Kresin Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 10:24:55 -0700 In-Reply-To: <57472386.8030605@hauke-m.de> References: <574372CD.1060201@hauke-m.de> <5743777F.9060801@hauke-m.de> <1464041521.5475.18.camel@chimera> <1464067930.27173.7.camel@chimera> <57472386.8030605@hauke-m.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 53666 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: daniel@gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 18:25 +0200, Hauke Mehrtens wrote: > I like it in the ARM arch code that the SoC specific code does not > have > to take care of this stuff. The normal arch code provides the device > tree and so on. Well, MIPS bootloaders are strikingly more diverse than on ARM… > Can we at least add a function to mips which will read the device tree > and the kernel cmd, so I do not have to open code it for each SoC, but > only call this function. That would take a serious arch overhaul not unlike the migration to DT, and I suspect multiple targets would break. So far, this argc == -2 stuff has been used on only two targets that I could see, so I don't believe it belongs in head.S even with such an overhaul. That said, if _real_ UHI spec compliance gets in, the SoC-specific stuff could just be dropped. In the meantime, I propose this patch with the changes previously suggested.