[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGngYiVa9v9jGPNu4W+KHUnvemKU-BVE89-XNLcWOmoZjAPMTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 10:46:58 -0400
From: Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
To: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [Q] devicetree overlays
Pantelis, Frank,
A quick question about the state of devicetree overlays. There don't seem to
be many in-kernel overlay users (rcar and fpga only?). Does it make sense for
new projects to use them?
My situation is this: I have hardware which consists of several modules.
Knowledge about the type and location of these modules is located in an
on-board eeprom.
So now I need to assemble a devicetree, by puzzling various 'blobs' together.
This could be done in the bootloader, but also by a rcar-like driver, which
queries the eeprom and inserts devicetree fragments/overlays into a live kernel.
A couple of questions:
- are devicetree overlays here to stay? (given that there are 2 in-kernel users)
- does it make sense to solve the modular devicetree problem in a rcar-like
fashion?
- is there perhaps a more canonical / idiomatic way to solve this?
Sven
Powered by blists - more mailing lists