On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 12:54:01PM -0700, Bryan Freed wrote: [...] > And as a more general question, why should we try not to put > configuration in the device tree? It seems like a great (and > portable) place to put this stuff. > It certainly seems better to have it there than hardwired in the > kernel or tacked onto the kernel command line.
But then we have two in-kernel APIs to pass kernel parameters? So we'll have to maintain two ways of passing the options for each driver. That is hardly a good solution. If you would like to see a convenient way to pass kernel/module options via the device tree, I would suggest implementing something like this: chosen { kernel-options { linux,pstore.record-size = 123; linux,foo = "bar"; }; }; And then let the kernel translate all these to module_param_*(). I am still not sure about placing the options along with devices layout, but if we go this route, then that is also viable: pstore-node { linux,pstore.record-size = 123; }; And translate "linux,*" this to module_param_*(). How does that sound? Thanks, Anton _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss