[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1167768494.6165.63.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:08:14 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...top.org,
jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
wmb@...mworks.com, jg@...top.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Open Firmware device tree virtual filesystem
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:37 +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> So please do this crap right.
> >
> > I strongly agree. Nowadays, both powerpc and sparc use an in-memory
> > copy
> > of the tree (wether you use the flattened format during the trampoline
> > from OF runtime to the kernel or not is a different matter, we created
> > that for the sake of kexec and embedded devices with no real OF, but
> > the
> > end result is the same, a kernel based tree structure).
>
> Are you really suggesting that using a kernel copy of the
> device tree is the correct thing to do, and the only correct
> thing to do -- with the sole argument that "that's what the
> current ports do"?
Well, there are reasons why that's what the current ports do :-)
We could of course have the interface work either on a copy of the tree
or on a real OF (though that means changing things like get_property on
powerpc and fixing the gazillions of users) but I tend to think that
working on a copy always is more efficient.
Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists