Hi,

On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 03:16:41AM +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
> Please unblock package flash-kernel
>
> Hello,
>
> flash-kernel/3.1 adds device tree support for Dreamplug device (used by
> freedombox).
>
> Dreamplug support has been backported into linux/3.2.21-1, which we expect
> it to get into wheezy sometime.
>
> Therefore, it would be really nice if we can get flash-kernel/3.1 in wheezy.
>
> unblock flash-kernel/3.1

my only concern is that /proc/device-tree/model takes precedence over
/proc/cpuinfo in any case with no fallback to the latter. So if any ARM SoC
gets device-tree enabled by a backport it might potentially need a change to
flash-kernel, if the "Hardware" string does not match up with what the model
file delivers.

Bdale argues that the device-tree changes could potentially incur other changes
so an update of flash-kernel makes sense instead of the fallback solution.

@debian-boot: Is it ok to unblock flash-kernel at this point or should that be
done post-beta1?

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 03:16:41AM +0200, Hector Oron wrote:
>> Please unblock package flash-kernel
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> flash-kernel/3.1 adds device tree support for Dreamplug device (used by
>> freedombox).
>>
>> Dreamplug support has been backported into linux/3.2.21-1, which we expect
>> it to get into wheezy sometime.
>>
>> Therefore, it would be really nice if we can get flash-kernel/3.1 in wheezy.
>>
>> unblock flash-kernel/3.1
>
> my only concern is that /proc/device-tree/model takes precedence over
> /proc/cpuinfo in any case with no fallback to the latter. So if any ARM SoC
> gets device-tree enabled by a backport it might potentially need a change to
> flash-kernel, if the "Hardware" string does not match up with what the model
> file delivers.

no. With DT, the Hardware string doesn't change with the model but with
the SoC. For instance, all kirkwood systems booting with DT have :

Hardware : Marvell Kirkwood (Flattened Device Tree)

[ defined in arch/arm/mach-kirkwood/board-dt.c ]

Then, the model is found in /proc/device-tree/model and I don't think
that things in /proc are changing a lot.


Arnaud


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87bojqiqv4.fsf@lebrac.rtp-net.org">http://lists.debian.org/87bojqiqv4.fsf@lebrac.rtp-net.org

Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> (07/07/2012):
> @debian-boot: Is it ok to unblock flash-kernel at this point or should
> that be done post-beta1?

Based on Arnaud's answer, please unblock it. If anything breaks, we know
whom to poke.

Mraw,
KiBi.

On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 10:44:47AM +0200, Arnaud Patard wrote:
> > my only concern is that /proc/device-tree/model takes precedence over
> > /proc/cpuinfo in any case with no fallback to the latter. So if any ARM SoC
> > gets device-tree enabled by a backport it might potentially need a change to
> > flash-kernel, if the "Hardware" string does not match up with what the model
> > file delivers.
> no. With DT, the Hardware string doesn't change with the model but with
> the SoC. For instance, all kirkwood systems booting with DT have :

Yeah, I was being imprecise. I said "delivers" when I meant "delivered".
I.e. that the device-tree enablement actually changes the Hardware name
and does not give the same token that was previously in there in model.

Anyway unblocked.

Cheers
Philipp Kern