[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200731151444.GI1712415@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 17:14:44 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Dan Callaghan <dan.callaghan@...ngear.com>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
Calvin Johnson <calvin.johnson@....nxp.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Jon <jon@...id-run.com>,
Cristi Sovaiala <cristian.sovaiala@....com>,
Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@....nxp.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux.cj" <linux.cj@...il.com>,
linux-acpi <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v7 1/6] Documentation: ACPI: DSD: Document MDIO
PHY
> > > DT can be used on x86, and i suspect it is a much easier path of least
> > > resistance.
> >
> > And you can easily overlay Device Tree to an existing system by using
> > either a full Device Tree overlay (dtbo) or using CONFIG_OF_DYNAMIC and
> > creating nodes on the fly.
>
> Why do you need DT on a system that runs without it and Linux has all
> means to extend to cover a lot of stuff DT provides for other types of
> firmware nodes?
As i said, path of least resistance. It is here today, heavily used,
well understood by lots of network developers, has a very active
maintainer in the form of Rob Herring, and avoids 'showflakes' as
Florian likes to call it, so we are all sharing the same code,
providing a lot of testing and maintenance.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists