Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:16:07 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Rafa=B3_Jaworowski?= <raj@semihalf.com> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@FreeBSD.org> Cc: arm@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Code review request: boards on AT91 Message-ID: <20EB52EA-EA95-42A4-9319-7838F0128447@semihalf.com> In-Reply-To: <492C74CE.4090808@freebsd.org> References: <20081125.104452.535842403.imp@bsdimp.com> <04BDAB4F-CF02-4CE6-90D8-E03EDC1CC8CC@semihalf.com> <492C74CE.4090808@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2008-11-25, at 22:57, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > Rafa=B3 Jaworowski wrote: >> On 2008-11-25, at 18:44, M. Warner Losh wrote: >> >> >>> 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 =20 >>> nice. >> >> I was dreaming once about all-generic initarm() that would have =20 >> KOBJ-based dispatcher, but am not sure this wouldn't cause some =20 >> chicken-and-egg issues as some parts of the infrastructure might =20 >> not be available at such early stages, but didn't investigate this =20= >> too close, any thoughts? But anyways, even a simple scheme with =20 >> common logic and function ptrs, which each platform variation would =20= >> implement their own routines (or use generic), would improve the =20 >> ARM init code significantly. > I am about to commit a patch in order to provide Open Firmware =20 > modularization using KOBJ (coincidentally, this should make =20 > supporting FDTs much easier). In order to this, I had to make KOBJ =20 > behave itself when invoked almost at the very beginning of the boot =20= > process on both PowerPC and SPARC, so you shouldn't have any trouble =20= > putting this in very early boot on ARM either once this hits the tree. Oh, very interesting news, thanks a lot -- I'll definitely look at =20 your code. Rafal=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20EB52EA-EA95-42A4-9319-7838F0128447>