On 2 November 2014 13:34, Ben Gras <b...@shrike-systems.com> wrote:
> A few months of work sounds like a bit much to take on as a side project at
> this point, and I have a few already, so no promises. But I am interested in
> hearing where the first thread is to start pulling at, so to speak.

The major problem is simply that the patches are a nasty mess
of new functionality, formatting changes, genuine bugfixes and the
odd random unnecessary change, and all of this has to be straightened
out into a coherent set of patches for them to go upstream. I
managed to do this in some places (and so a few parts of omap3
actually went upstream already) but there is a lot more work
still to do.

Also necessary will be updating this fairly old code to modern
QEMU standards (most notably making all the devices and SoC
containers into proper QOM classes). This is usually fairly
straightforward but there is a lot of code here to update.

The omap3's "fake not actually functional trustzone" code that
it uses to make the omap3 kernel SMC interface work is going
to collide with the actual functional implementation of TZ
that's starting to appear upstream, so it will need to be
looked at to see how much changing it needs. (If you try
to rebase the patches this is probably going to be the
nastiest bit to sort out to get them back to functional
again.)

My plan last time I was thinking about how to do this was
based on trying to identify a minimum subset of devices
that would still boot a kernel that was configured with a
very minimal set of devices (so no graphics, no MMC, no
USB, etc etc). Unfortunately since u-boot for OMAP3 seems
to like to probe anything and everything this means that
we probably need to start by implementing support for
QEMU's -kernel parameter to directly load a kernel rather
than letting the guest boot loader do it. Then identify
the minimal set of devices and clean up just those to
get them into submittable shape. Once those are upstream
then the size of the patchset is reduced, which in turn
means the pain of maintaining it out of tree is lowered,
and it's a bit easier to try to sort out the rest one
device at a time.

-- PMM

_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev

Reply via email to