On 10/31/2012 05:56 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote: > On 10/31/2012 1:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote: >> cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread: >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/ >> >> On 26.10.2012 20:39, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> On 10/24/2012 03:47 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> a project I'm involved in uses a module/baseboard combo, and components >>>> on either board are described in DT. I'm currently using separate dts >>>> files which build upon each other with include statements, which works >>>> fine for development. >>>> >>>> In production though, we will certainly have running changes (and hence >>>> different versions) over the lifetime of the product for both the >>>> baseboard and the module, and the hardware has support for identifying >>>> the versions of both sides at runtime. ... >> I start to believe that the cleanest solution to this would be to >> have full DTC functionality in U-Boot and compile the tree > > ... which is exactly the way that Open Firmware does it, since the > invention of the device tree. The model is that the boot firmware, > which needs to know the system configuration to do its job anyway, > exports that configuration via the device tree.
Doesn't OF generate the DT from internal data structures (although I don't know where those come from...), whereas what Daniel mentions above is more like the bootloader having access to a bunch of .dts fragments, selecting the appropriate subset of those to use, parsing them into an internal data structure (i.e. running dtc), and then generating a DTB from it. The overall result is that the bootloader causes a DTB to be generated at run-time, so at that level it's the same, but the implementation seems pretty different. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
