I do object basically to having something that doesn't also provide in-kernel interfaces to access the device nodes & properties.
That's the wrong way around. Work is underway to instead have the devicetreefs *use* the in-kernel interfaces. Would that be acceptable?
I don't agree with the reasoning that x86 will never need it.
Neither do I :-)
Now, we have currently two slightly different interfaces, on powerpc and sparc, to access them, and that's I think we should try to converge and use the same interface for x86.
All should converge on the same interface. That does not ab initio mean we should converge on what you currently have (although that might eventually be that case).
In addition, as sparc64 also moved to an in-memory copy of the tree, I tend to be fairly convinced that we should also move toward the same -implementation- also based on an in-memory copy of the tree which is more efficient (and doesn't use a significant amount of RAM).
Leaving aside the issue of in-memory or not, I don't think it is realistic to think any completely common implementation will work for this -- it might for current SPARC+PowerPC+OLPC, but more stuff will be added over time... Segher - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/