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> References: <20081125.104452.535842403.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?04BDAB4F-CF02-4CE6-90D8-E03EDC1CC8CC>