Re: [PATCH] Open Firmware device tree virtual filesystem

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I'd like to put in my $.02 in favor of having a way to pass the OF
device tree to the kernel, in much the same way we pass stuff like
ACPI and PIRQ and MP tables now.

This works fine for just passing the device tree, but it will fail for
the next step of being able to use the firmware in the OS, and returning
sanely to the firmware.

Not everyone wants/needs that.  Flexibility is key.

- any path that uses kexec (since the first kernel probably shut down
  OF)

No, that path works fine. The first kernel uses OFW, so it wont shut it
down. Only thing is you need to pass the callback to the loaded kernel.

Depends.  The kernel _can_ shut down OF; in that case, it
becomes responsible for passing the device tree along to
the kexec'd kernel.

- etherboot

ok, well.

Heh :-)

OFW is open source now. I think it's time to reexamine the basic
assumptions about the need for a callback, and see if something better
can't be done.

I fully agree. And I believe there are very good things that can be done
with callbacks. The reasons callbacks are evil is that you dont know
what you call into. This is not at all the case here. It's a mere
function call that calls some highly board specific code, not unlike all
the calls we do in LinuxBIOS already today. Since we're 100% open
source, we don't "cross a border" anymore.

Oh you *do* cross a border, and that is a good thing here; it
is a stable API, and that makes a lot of sense here.

- 16bit legacy callbacks
- (u)efi legacy callbacks
- existing openfirmware support code for non-x86 platforms.

But: It is a first step that, as a mid-term goal, allows us to unify OFW
support on all platforms to some extent.

Yes.

Mitch, is there some way to get OF device tree to the kernel without
involving a callback? That would be quite nice.

That is a nice idea, but unless there is any LinuxBIOS version that
creates such a device tree and exports it as a data structure to the OS,
why would we want to add such support to the Linux kernel?

The PowerPC arch code already handles this.


Segher

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux