Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 11:10:55 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: tinguely@casselton.net Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: at91 SoC separation Message-ID: <20090526.111055.1849561573.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <200905261551.n4QFpt1w084810@casselton.net> References: <20090524.163838.113805925.imp@bsdimp.com> <200905261551.n4QFpt1w084810@casselton.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <200905261551.n4QFpt1w084810@casselton.net>
Mark Tinguely <tinguely@casselton.net> writes:
:
: As a side, slightly off-topic note, I have been thinking of the whole boot
: process.
:
: The different ARM architecture/board boot sequences are basically the same.
: I agree that the main difference between the different ARM boards are the
: difference in the locations of devices map.
:
: Right now, the init_arm() manually allocates the "level one" page tables
: so they are available for the pmap_devmap_bootstrap() call.
:
: The devmap bootstrap can be modified to automatically allocate any missing
: "level one" page tables from the end of the free memory pointer. The
: updated end of free memory is sent back to the initialation routine.
: Add a few calls for architecture initialization and ever board can use
: the same boot routine.
That's another can of worms that we need to detangle :)
I rather like this idea. I also like the idea of having different
boot loader front ends that drive this rather than having the SoC code
drive it. We are a little too tightly coupled between boot loader and
soc at the moment as well.
The work isn't horribly hard, just tedious because you have to run
down a bunch of different boards we support and see why the routines
are different and account for those differences, or hopefully,
eliminate them. It is the latter that's going to be a challenge.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090526.111055.1849561573.imp>