On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:16:50 -0600 Kumar Gala galak@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Kim Phillips wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:13:07 -0600 Kumar Gala galak@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
Was thinking about this some more and realized I don't like fdt_memory() getting called via bootm w/o the board code have control.
I think Kim suggest we have a CONFIG_OF_MEMORY_FIXUP that this call is wrapped around. But leave fdt_memory() available. I want it such that the board code/config is in control of what fixups gets called for it.
That's funny. My first patch wrapped the fixup in CONFIG_OF_MEMORY_FIXUP and it was you, who suggested to drop this ;-). AFAIR Kim suggested to wrap it in the existing OF_LIBFDT instead - what I did then. But I have no objections, if you put CONFIG_OF_MEMORY_FIXUP in place again.
Yeah, I know. I realized later that we should leave it to board code to decide what it wants in such cases. The reason for that is if you can envision having multiple device trees in multiprocessor system with each processor running a different OS.
so make it a weak fn then?
weak doesn't cover it. I don't want to implement my own version of fdt_memory_fixup(). I want to control how its called.
ya, ok. I see this now.
Kim