[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121115045718.GJ32290@truffula.fritz.box>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:57:18 +1100
From: David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
To: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>, Matt Porter <mporter@...com>,
Koen Kooi <koen@...inion.thruhere.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@...aro.org>,
Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.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)
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Nov 13, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
[snip]
> My intention wasn't never to make overlays overly portable. My intention
> was to make them in a way that portability can be introduced if the boards
> are 'close' enough, but not for arbitrary boards.
>
> There have to be compatible interfaces both on the base, and the overlay
> dtbs.
Right. And this is why I'm arguing that those interfaces should be
described explicitly - using existing OF mechanisms like interrupt-map
where possible, rather than having a very general, but very low-level
interface to make arbitrary changes to the DT.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
--
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