[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH/RFC] mpc5200: switch to CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT

[Jerry Van Baren]

Grant Likely wrote:
> On 9/3/07, Jerry Van Baren <vanbargw at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On 9/3/07, Jerry Van Baren <vanbargw at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Grant Likely wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/07, Bartlomiej Sieka <tur at semihalf.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:20:14PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Grant Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is a patch which converts the icecube* and tqm5200 boards from using
>>>>>>> OF_FLAT_TREE to OF_LIBFDT.  It also fixes the compile of cm5200.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's been tested on the lite5200.
>>>>>> Tested also on motionpro, with the below patch that converts it to OF_LIBFDT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Grant: perhaps it would be a good idea to merge this patch with your
>>>>>> upcoming updated patch for icecube and tqm5200?
>>>>> Can do.  I'll respin the patch and post it once more to the list
>>>>> before asking wd to pull it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> g.
>>>> Hi Grant,
>>>>
>>>> My only critique/request is to change fixup_int_prop() to be
>>>> fixup_u32_prop() so that we don't get confused if we ever have to fix up
>>>> a u16 or u64 property.
>>> No problem.  Should I move it to libfdt as well?
>>>
>>> g.
>> Sure!
>>
>> We have a 3-way coordination between you, Kim with the 83xx, and myself
>> with libfdt and right now I'm pretty busy.  I have not had the time to
>> figure out where the routine should go and get together a set of patches
>> for libfdt and 83xx to convert over to the New Improved helper routines.
>>
>> If you are willing to figure out where to put it in libfdt, I'll push
>> forward from this end but it may be a couple of weeks before I can put
>> some time in on it (unless my more "urgent" duties get boring ;-).
>>
>> In the last merge window, Kim & I traded some patches back and forth and
>> git figured it out OK, so we should be able to apply the same patch to
>> both your and my (and Kim's?) repositories and have it all work out.
> 
> Alright, I'll do so.  Where does the 'upstream' libfdt source live
> nowdays?  Do you want me to craft the change against the u-boot repo
> and let you merge it back in to libfdt upstream?  Or should I put a
> temporary change into u-boot to fix the compile issues and base my
> patch against libfdt upstream (with the mind to remove the temporary
> fix when u-boot resyncs)?
> 
> Cheers,
> g.

Hi Grant,

The libfdt custodian repo is on the denx.de site, but should be the same 
as the mainline.  I would say patch your 5xxx custodian repo, publishing 
the new functions that impact the libfdt stuff as a separate patch and 
The List can discuss them.  I'll "ack" them and apply them to my repo as 
well, but NBD.  I will plan on updating the 83xx implementation(s) and 
publish them for Kim to ack/adopt as well.

When we get the basics of the New Improved[tm] utility functions set up, 
we can redo the 83xx at our leisure.

Best regards,
gvb