On 12/05/2013 12:57 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 12:46 +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >> On 12/05/2013 12:34 PM, Martin Michlmayr wrote: >>> * Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@blackshift.org> [2013-12-05 11:49]: >>>> That's no option, as non DT Sheeva Plug support has been removed from >>>> the kernel in ffbc50663b69462adc9d97b93b6b92c4fe74b94c: >>>> >>>> ffbc506 ARM: kirkwood: remove support for legacy booting of Sheevaplug >>> >>> Interesting. I thought they promised not to remove non-DT support for >>> existing devices. >> >> I personally don't mind, if it's removed once the DT works properly. >> >>> Anyway, Marc, so thanks for your patch. I wonder if it makes sense to >>> add a check to flash-kernel whether DT is required or not. i.e. that >>> flash-kernel would append the DT blob on 3.12+ kernels on SheevaPlug >>> but not on previous kernels. >> >> Yes, sounds like the way to go. Otherwise you have to tie certain >> flash-kernel versions to the non-DT and DT kernels. This will probably >> not scale when more no-DT board are removed from the kernel. >> >> Where should this information go? What about adding another field to >> all.db which limits an entry to certain kernel versions? Something like >> this: > > I think it would be sufficient to have a field marking the DTB as > optional and have f-k only do the append if there is a dtb present in > the DTS directory (/usr/lib/linux-X.Y/whatever) for the version it is > handling. If the kernel needs a DTB but doesn't ship one, well ,that's a > bug in the kernel (until we get to the point of burning DTBs into > firmware, but lets not worry about that now!). ...or when the DT sources will be move into a separate repository. > I take it from your original patches that the machine ID differs with DT > vs non as well? Yes, this is why the second patch adds another entry. Marc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature