On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 04:34:41PM +0200, Svyatoslav wrote:
25 січня 2024 р. 16:17:34 GMT+02:00, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com написав(-ла):
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 04:16:11PM +0200, Svyatoslav wrote:
25 січня 2024 р. 16:12:36 GMT+02:00, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com написав(-ла):
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 08:51:09AM +0200, Svyatoslav wrote:
25 січня 2024 р. 08:29:54 GMT+02:00, Dan Carpenter dan.carpenter@linaro.org написав(-ла):
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:27:30PM +0200, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote: > Currently, if boot with extlinux.conf and do not set the fdt > U-Boot will provide its own device tree. This behavior is > beneficial if the U-Boot device tree is in sync with Linux, > but it totally halts the booting of pre-dtb kernels (3.4 for > example) since it uses ATAGs. To fix this, pass `-` in the > fdt extlinux field as a signal that no tree should be used.
Passing - doesn't seem like the most intuitive thing... Is there a different argument we could use?
I agree that `-` is not the most intuitive argument, but this is a way to implement a fix with the least code posssible. To make this less obscure I have adjusted documentation.
It's also how historically we do similar things. eg, "bootm $kernel_addr_r - $fdt_addr_r". My question is can we re-work this, cleanly, with guards around SUPPORT_PASSING_ATAGS to not increase size anywhere that doesn't need this legacy case.
Which behavior you propose?
Well, using the IS_ENABLED macro with the new tests around "-".
So using "-" for booting with extlinux with ATAGs is fine for you? Guards, sure, I will handle this. Which tests you are interested in? Maybe you can point to an example? Thanks.
Sorry, I meant tests in terms of writing the code, not unit tests as no, we don't have enough unit tests around booting a kernel as it stands and I don't see how to just add a test for extlinux + legacy kernel.