On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 02:55:07PM +0200, David Jander wrote: > Mark Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Other OSs are actively using device tree. > Interesting. I wasn't aware of "actively using". Sure, there's MacOS-X-ppc, > IBM AIX, Oracle Solaris.... and I just discovered that Free-/OpenBSD also use > them. *BSD are the main ones to consider here. > > Eliminating board specific code for audio is not a realistic goal, the > > configuration of modern audio subsystems is too complex and dynamic. > Why not? How complex could it be in order to not be able to describe it in a > Device-Tree in some OS-agnostic way? Note the "dynamic" bit - the configuration changes at runtime. Describing the hardware for something like a modern smartphone isn't particularly useful due to the flexibility, there are too many different ways of configuring the system and we need code to acutally take those decision. > > The plan is to push the device trees out of the kernel into a separate > > repository. > Good idea.... but where should such a repository be hosted? Still an open issue. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
