[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A1DD3A0.3010501@freescale.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 18:58:24 -0500
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
To: Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@...gutronix.de>
CC: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
devicetree-discuss <devicetree-discuss@...abs.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
Janboe Ye <yuan-bo.ye@...orola.com>,
Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>, rmk@....linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Device Tree on ARM platform
Robert Schwebel wrote:
> The oftree by design wants to be a complete hardware description. As you
> mention above, there are cases where you *nevertheless* need ad-hoc
> information about things *not* encoded into the device tree.
>
> This renders the whole concept ad absurdum. You need a machine number
> again - and if you need that: why not stay with the ARM model, define
> everything with platform data and avoid the whole thing?
Because it's better to have a little platform specific code than a lot
of it?
-Scott
--
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