From: "Stephen Neuendorffer" <stephen.neuendorffer@xilinx•com>
To: "Milton Miller" <miltonm@bga•com>
Cc: ppcdev <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs•org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/7] bootwrapper: Add a firmware-independent "raw" target.
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:31:31 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071214172953.BC577F90059@mail151-sin.bigfish.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f7eb0ae3da29213720e6b0049deca335@bga.com>
=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Miller [mailto:miltonm@bga•com]=20
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 12:06 AM
> To: Stephen Neuendorffer
> Cc: ppcdev; Grant Likely
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] bootwrapper: Add a=20
> firmware-independent "raw" target.
>=20
> On Fri Dec 14 10:43:27 EST 2007, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote:
>=20
> > From: Grant Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca>
> >
> > This target produces a flat binary rather than an ELF file,
> > fixes the entry point at the beginning of the image, and takes
> > a complete device tree with no fixups needed.
> >
> > The device tree must have labels on /#address-cells, the timebase
> > frequency, and the memory size.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca>
> > ---
>=20
>=20
> You indicated in the intro in 0/ that this was not ready, and you=20
> didn't include your own s-o-b, but you did not put any statements to=20
> that effect in the header. The intro is not copied into patchwork,=20
> which maintainers often use when deciding what to push.
Sorry... Still trying to figure out the process.
> Now on to why this should not be merged:
>=20
> In addition to the above, it changes the build rules. It tries to=20
> change wrapper to assemble the .dtb into a .o from a .S file, but=20
> doesn't set any flags to force the assembler into the right mode. In=20
> contrast the linker is controlled by the .lds linker script.
>=20
> In addition, the requirement for assembly labels can easily be=20
> eliminated. As mentioned above, they are used for 3=20
> properties. With=20
> the existing library (in 2.6.24 and earlier), call simple_malloc_init=20
> with a small bss array (like BSS_STACK does to allocate stack), and=20
> then read the properties out of the device tree. At that point, call=20
> simple_malloc_init a second time using the found memory size. As I=20
> said the last time this was posted, my patches to boot from kexec=20
> implemented this strategy.
>=20
> However, with the new libfdt, which is already in for-2.6.25,=20
> we should=20
> no longer need malloc() to simple read the tree. At least that is=20
> what was advertised.
Yes, I agree, I just haven't had a chance to go back and write that code
yet...
Thanks for the comments,
Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-14 17:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-12-13 23:43 [PATCH 1/7] bootwrapper: Add a firmware-independent "raw" target Stephen Neuendorffer
2007-12-14 8:05 ` Milton Miller
2007-12-14 15:23 ` Grant Likely
2007-12-14 17:31 ` Stephen Neuendorffer [this message]
2007-12-16 11:35 ` David Gibson
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=20071214172953.BC577F90059@mail151-sin.bigfish.com \
--to=stephen.neuendorffer@xilinx$(echo .)com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs$(echo .)org \
--cc=miltonm@bga$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox