[PATCH 5/5] arm: boot: store ATAGs structure into DT "/chosen/linux,atags" entry

[Tony Lindgren]

* Tony Lindgren <tony at atomide.com> [150713 06:21]:
> * Pali Rohár <pali.rohar at gmail.com> [150707 05:00]:
> > On Tuesday 07 July 2015 12:32:13 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 10:26:13PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > Legacy bootloaders can pass additional information for kernel or legacy
> > > > userspace applications. When booting DT kernel then ATAGs structure is not
> > > > more visible after running kernel uncompress code. This patch stores full
> > > > ATAGs structure into DT "/chosen/linux,atags" entry, so kernel can later
> > > > reuse it and export via /proc/atags to userspace.
> > > 
> > > I think you need to go through your commit messages and improve them,
> > > especially the ones with "TODO" in them.  As long as there's still things
> > > to be done, they're obviously not ready for merging.
> > > 
> > 
> > I know, in cover letter email I wrote that documentation is not ready...
> > I send patches for review and comments (like yours). I think it is still
> > better to send something and mark it as incomplete. It could prevent to
> > work on something which will be again rewritten...
> > 
> > > Moreover, exporting the ATAGS is questionable, even _if_ there are non-
> > > kexec programs making use of this.  The ATAGs have _never_ been exported
> > > to userspace when kexec disabled is the kernel - it was introduced for
> > > kexec, and has always had this:
> > > 
> > > config ATAGS_PROC
> > >         bool "Export atags in procfs"
> > >         depends on ATAGS && KEXEC
> > >         default y
> > > 
> > > Now, the fact that someone decided to start using it is pretty sad,
> > > because it means that if you disable KEXEC, userspace breaks.  That's
> > > not a kernel regression in any shape or form, because /proc/atags has
> > > never been there without KEXEC enabled.  That's a userspace bug, plain
> > > and simple.
> > > 
> > > Given that, I'm in two minds about whether to accept the last two
> > > patches which make this more than just "for KEXEC use to enable a KEXEC
> > > kernel to be booted."
> > > 
> > > Had it been provided without the KEXEC conditional, then I don't have
> > > a problem with these two patches.
> > > 
> > 
> > I understand it. Nokia originally invented their own entries in /proc/
> > which export needed ATAGs from kernel in human-readable form, but all
> > those entries were non-standard and specific for Nokia's kernels.
> > 
> > Do you have some other idea how to provide ATAGs information created
> > dynamically by legacy closed proprietary bootloader to userspace from DT
> > booted kernel?
> > 
> > Anyway, for supporting kexec (with passing ATAGs) it is needed to have
> > working /proc/atags file, right?
> 
> Yeah I think that since we already have it in /proc, we should just
> support it. And keep it behind CONFIG_KEXEC and CONFIG_ARM_APPENDED_DTB
> and hope we don't find other users for it.. Then reconsider the Kconfig
> dependencies if we do find other users.
>  
> > > It also sets a precedent: by adding this into DT, it is creating a new
> > > DT ABI as well, and we'll end up seeing dts files with an ATAG block
> > > patched into them.
> > > 
> > > Are the ATAGs at a fixed address on the N900?
> > 
> > Yes, in board-rx51.c is:
> > 
> > .atag_offset	= 0x100
> > 
> > and Nokia Bootloader (proprietary) store them to that address.
> >
> > > Can that be handled in
> > > some kind of legacy file for the N900 which calls save_atags() on it, so
> > > we don't end up introducing yet more stuff that we have to maintain into
> > > the distant future?  If not, what about copying a known working atag
> > > structure into a legacy file for the N900?
> >
> > I already asked question if it is possible to read ATAGs from DT booted
> > kernel. And somebody (do not remember who) wrote to ML, that it is not
> > possible and it can be done in that uncompress code.
> 
> I guess the other option would be to keep the raw ATAG area reserved,
> and only initialize /proc/atags from a board specific initcall.
> But I think that would complicate the already fragile uncompress
> relocation code even further?

Pali, any news on posting an updated series with the comments addressed
in this thread? It seems that we all pretty much agree what needs to
be done.

Regards,

Tony