On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Warner Losh <[email protected]> wrote: > In message: <[email protected]> > Grant Likely <[email protected]> writes: > : Overall the plan makes sense, however I would suggest the following. > : instead of 'live' modifying the tree, another option is to carry a set > : of 'stock' device trees in the kernel; one per board. Of course this > : assumes that your current ad-hoc code is keying on the specific board. > : If it is interpreting data provided by the firmware, then your > : suggestion of modifying a single stock tree probably makes more sense, > : or possibly a combination of the too. In general you should avoid > : live modification as much as possible. > > The one draw back on this is that there's lots of different "stock" > boards that the Cavium Octeon SDK supports. These will be difficult > to drag along for every kernel. And they'd be mostly the same to, > which is why I think that David is suggesting the live modification > thing...
Okay. Do what makes the most sense for your platform. g. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
