[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131019014919.GB30244@codeaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 18:49:19 -0700
From: Michael Bohan <mbohan@...eaurora.org>
To: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
Cc: David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
rob.herring@...xeda.com, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
david.daney@...ium.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of/lib: Export fdt routines to modules
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 04:20:09PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 10/18/2013 02:32 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
> > My preference is probably straight libfdt calls, but if others
> > think that unpacking is a better solution, I'm able to go that
> > route as well. My only concern there is that we provide a means
> > to detect invalid dtb image (ex. handle error codes) and also
> > free the device_node allocations once the device is released.
>
> I think we need to understand what you are putting in the DT first.
That's understandable. Please see my response to Mark.
> Given there are other desired uses like overlays which need to add the
> necessary loading and unflattening support, a common solution is likely
> more desirable.
But by convention, would overlays allow for 'application
specific' data, or are they expected to meet the more rigid
requirements of a real Device Tree?
Thanks,
Mike
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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