* Grant Likely <grant.lik...@secretlab.ca> [121105 06:36]: > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Pantelis Antoniou > <pa...@antoniou-consulting.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 5, 2012, at 1:22 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Pantelis Antoniou > >> <pa...@antoniou-consulting.com> wrote: > >>> Assuming that we do work on a DT object format, and that the runtime > >>> resolution mechanism is approved, > >>> then I agree that this part of the capebus patches can be dropped and the > >>> functionality assumed by generic > >>> DT core. > >>> > >>> The question is that this will take time, with no guarantees that this > >>> would be acceptable from > >>> the device tree maintainers. So I am putting them in the CC list, to see > >>> what they think about it. > >> > >> This is actually exactly the direction I want to go with DT, which the > >> ability to load supplemental DT data blobs from either a kernel module > >> or userspace using the firmware loading infrastructure. > >> > >> g. > > > > Hi Grant, > > > > That's pretty much our use case. > > > > Regards > > Good. I'm about 80% though putting together a project plan of what is > required to implement this. I'll post it for RFC shortly. I would > appreciate feedback and help on flushing out the design.
Great, sounds like almost-a-plan then :) Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
