[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87vdnm8sec.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 17:41:47 +0200
From: Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@...site.dk>
To: Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>,
devicetree-discuss <devicetree-discuss@...abs.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Janboe Ye <yuan-bo.ye@...orola.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk, rmk@....linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Device Tree on ARM platform
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@...gutronix.de> writes:
Hi,
Robert> - The whole concept is based on the assumption that bindings
Robert> are defined *once*, then never to be changed again. As this
Robert> is not true (check MPC5200 to find out what I mean), oftree
Robert> wreckage is *the* main cause of new kernels not working on
Robert> old bootloaders any more. Is there a solution of this
Robert> problem? I have not seen a good idea how to avoid the
Robert> constant change in definitions.
Just bundle the .dtb with the kernel and they'll always be in sync. I
know this isn't really in the spirit of OF, but currently imho the
only realistic solution.
I did a (nacked) patch to do this with the multi-image support in
U-Boot some time ago:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/589/
Robert> - The oftree layering is fundamentally broken. We already
Robert> have a sane abstraction for arbitrary hardware in the kernel:
Robert> platform devices. Why not instanciate platform devices from
Robert> a generic oftree core?
Robert> - Platform data makes it possible to store function
Robert> pointers. There is no equivalent to this concept in
Robert> oftree-land.
Yeah.
--
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
--
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