> On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 11:04:11AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Dec 2010, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday 17 December 2010, David Brown wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure really what to do about PHYS_OFFSET. This is kind of the
> > > > big thing that has kept us so far from making our SOCs multiply
> > > > selectable. I could move this into a Kconfig option, but it would
> > > > still need to be selected by the SOC. It is unfortunate that most of
> > > > our SOCs have different enough memory configurations that these are
> > > > mostly different. Even 8960/8660 will probably have future variants
> > > > that are at different addresses.
> > >
> > > I think there are people working on relocatable kernels already,
> > > and we definitely need this for the other work in progress of
> > > doing kernel binaries that work across different SoC families,
> > > as well as for doing a single kernel that can be used both for
> > > booting the system and for kdump.
> > >
> > > You don't need to worry about PHYS_OFFSET at the platform level,
> > > we'll get there in a few months for all ARM platforms.
> >
> > ... or in a few days even. I'm currently working on the patch making
> > PHYS_OFFSET patched into the kernel at run time. I'm currently looking
> > at what is needed to make it work also with Thumb2.
>
> So where do we stand with:
>
>
http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20101110.175549.62a0b058.en.html
>
> Is this something which should be queued for this merge window?
