Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:59:28 +0100
From:      =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Rafa=B3_Jaworowski?= <raj@semihalf.com>
To:        "M.Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
Cc:        arm@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Code review request: boards on AT91
Message-ID:  <04BDAB4F-CF02-4CE6-90D8-E03EDC1CC8CC@semihalf.com>
In-Reply-To: <20081125.104452.535842403.imp@bsdimp.com>

index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail

On 2008-11-25, at 18:44, M. Warner Losh wrote:

> I'm trying a little experiment.  I'm moving the board support for the
> different sets of boards we support to their own file.  This is the
> first step in moving to supporting multiple boards more easily.
> There's a number of gross hacks to make this work now in at91 land,
> and I'd like to clean them up.  The mv port is much cleaner, but we
> still likely need some way to identify boards and get the right board
> support code called.  In Linux land, all ARM boot loaders are expected
> to pass in a machine type, which is used to do the multiplexing.
> Something similar in FreeBSD would be useful (and not just for ARM).

Hi Warner,
While I understand your point about systems with simplistic  
bootloaders, which cannot provide enough config data to kernel, we  
should not see the machine ID model as a final solution for more  
capable environments. I guess we all agree that for those more capable  
systems we need some really extensible mechanism (device tree type),  
as discussed previously :-)

> If anybody wants me to write up where I'm going with this, or answer
> any question, please feel free to ask.  Also, comments would be nice.

I was dreaming once about all-generic initarm() that would have KOBJ- 
based dispatcher, but am not sure this wouldn't cause some chicken-and- 
egg issues as some parts of the infrastructure might not be available  
at such early stages, but didn't investigate this too close, any  
thoughts? But anyways, even a simple scheme with common logic and  
function ptrs, which each platform variation would implement their own  
routines (or use generic), would improve the ARM init code  
significantly.

Rafal


home | help

Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?04BDAB4F-CF02-4CE6-90D8-E03EDC1CC8CC>