[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <b8370fecbb4a917934b0b163ea5774f5@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 12:37:32 +0100
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...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
>> 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"?
> There is already powerpc's /proc/device-tree and sparc's openpromfs,
> I'm
> all about converging that to a single implementation (a filesystem is
> fine)
We all agree on that, the OLPC people too, they just didn't
have time yet.
> that uses the in-memory tree.
...but to that I can't agree.
Segher
-
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