[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <C9F4DFD1-4BF4-423C-B749-74E37D51192A@antoniou-consulting.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 14:25:33 +0100
From: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc: "Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@...com>,
Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Matt Porter <mporter@...com>, Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] capebus moving omap_devices to mach-omap2
On Nov 5, 2012, at 1:22 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> <panto@...oniou-consulting.com> wrote:
>> Assuming that we do work on a DT object format, and that the runtime resolution mechanism is approved,
>> then I agree that this part of the capebus patches can be dropped and the functionality assumed by generic
>> DT core.
>>
>> The question is that this will take time, with no guarantees that this would be acceptable from
>> the device tree maintainers. So I am putting them in the CC list, to see what they think about it.
>
> This is actually exactly the direction I want to go with DT, which the
> ability to load supplemental DT data blobs from either a kernel module
> or userspace using the firmware loading infrastructure.
>
> g.
Hi Grant,
That's pretty much our use case.
Regards
-- Pantelis
--
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