[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5ED17D42-07B8-4D4F-B54F-82B4CC60584C@antoniou-consulting.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 09:13:36 +0100
From: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@...aro.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>, Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
Matt Porter <mporter@...com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Device Tree Overlays Proposal (Was Re: capebus moving omap_devices to mach-omap2)
Hi Grant
On Nov 6, 2012, at 9:45 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
> <panto@...oniou-consulting.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
>
> g.
Since we've started talking about longer term goals, and the versioning
provision seems to stand, I hope we address how much the fragment versioning
thing is similar to the way board revisions progress.
If a versioning syntax is available then one could create a single DT
file for a bunch of 'almost' similar board and board revisions.
Using a single DTB in the same manner you have a single uImage would
make some people quite happy, since you won't have to do any bootloader
magic to make sure you pass the correct DTB for the specific revision.
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