From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sr@denx.de>
Received: from mo-p05-ob.rzone.de (mo-p05-ob.rzone.de [81.169.146.182])
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 535D6DE107
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:24:17 +1100 (EST)
From: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PowerPC 440EPx/GRx fix memory size calculation
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:24:13 +0100
References: <49B58779.9040905@lebon.org.ua> <200903120905.11542.sr@denx.de>
	<1236845549.7086.86.camel@pasglop>
In-Reply-To: <1236845549.7086.86.camel@pasglop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Message-Id: <200903120924.13378.sr@denx.de>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, lebon@lebon.org.ua
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Thursday 12 March 2009, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 09:05 +0100, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > Both is possible. Older U-Boot versions only passed the bd_t struct to
> > the kernel. For those U-Boot's the wrapper is needed. More recent U-Boot
> > versions support passing a device-tree blob to the kernel. U-Boot patches
> > the correct memory size in this blob.
> >
> > As a matter of fact, I never used the wrapper before. U-Boot supports
> > passing the device-tree blob to Linux since quite some time now.
>
> Yes, that's also how I use it on canyonlands... now, the wrapper could
> probably be used to look at the bd_t anyways, no ?

Sure.

> Either get the mem 
> size from there or some flag or version in there can indicate if it's
> been "fixed".

I don't think that we have some flag and/or version information in the bd_info 
struct. And extending this struct doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Best regards,
Stefan