On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:24:13AM +0100, Stefan Roese wrote: >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.
Do newer U-Boot versions pass both the dtb and the bd_t? If not, the wrapper would have to look for one, then the other and not get confused. >> 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. Yeah, we've already had some issues pop up in the past where the bd_t wasn't correct for a board in the U-Boot version that shipped with it (like the acadia boards). There's not much that can be done to fix it. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
