linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Device Tree Overlays Proposal (Was Re: capebus moving omap

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:53:49 +0100
From:	Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>,
	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>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>, Matt Porter <mporter@...com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>, Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Device Tree Overlays Proposal (Was Re: capebus moving omap_devices to mach-omap2)


Op 10 nov. 2012, om 00:40 heeft Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca> het volgende geschreven:

> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> I do rather suspect this use-case is quite common. NVIDIA certainly has
>>>> a bunch of development boards with pluggable
>>>> PMIC/audio/WiFi/display/..., and I believe there's some ability to
>>>> re-use the pluggable components with a variety of base-boards.
>>>> 
>>>> Given people within NVIDIA started talking about this recently, I asked
>>>> them to enumerate all the boards we have that support pluggable
>>>> components, and how common it is that some boards support being plugged
>>>> into different main boards. I don't know when that enumeration will
>>>> complete (or even start) but hopefully I can provide some feedback on
>>>> how common the use-case is for us once it's done.
>>> 
>>> From your perspective, is it important to use the exact same .dtb
>>> overlays for those add-on boards, or is it okay to have a separate
>>> build of the overlay for each base tree?
>> 
>> I certainly think it'd be extremely beneficial to use the exact same
>> child board .dtb with arbitrary base boards.
>> 
>> Consider something like the Arduino shield connector format, which I
>> /believe/ has been re-used across a wide variety of Arduino boards and
>> other compatible or imitation boards. Now consider a vendor of an
>> Arduino shield. The shield vendor probably wants to publish a single
>> .dtb file that works for users irrespective of which board they're using
>> it with.
>> 
>> (Well, I'm not sure that Arduino can run Linux; perhaps that's why you
>> picked BeagleBone capes for your document!)
> 
> Correct, the Arduino is only an AVR with a tiny amount of ram. No Linux there.
> 
> However, Arduino shields are a good example of a use case. I think
> there are even some Arduino shield compatible Linux boards out there.

A good example of those would be the Rascal Micro: http://rascalmicro.com/

regards,

Koen--
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/