On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:19:24 +0100 Mark Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. Ok, but you could still describe the hardwired part of it (Audio muxes, codecs, busses and physical interfaces). Isn't that what OF is all about? In our case, its just a simple AC97 codec connected to a simple AC97 bus. Sounds like total overkill having to write a "fabric driver" for this.... while there are already quite a few that are all 99% the same! > > > 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. Seems like its hard to find a vendor- and OS-neutral entity to host this? OpenBIOS maybe? Best regards, -- David Jander Protonic Holland. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
