> 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).
Well, Dave and I will happen to be in the same place in a few weeks for LCA so we might spend some time having a look there if we don't have any better to do :-) > 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... And ? I don't see why a mostly common implementations wouldn't work, provided that we provide hooks in the right place. It's pretty clear to me that the actual construction of the in-memory tree will remain platform specific (powerpc has this flattened format used for the trampoline for example and so far, I don't think other platforms plan to use it, though it might be a good idea too :-) sparc has "issues" related to firmwares that aren't quite OF, etc...) But it's also clear that the in-kernel representation, accessors and filesystem could/should be totally identical, including all we build on top, like prom_parse, of_device/of_platform device stuff etc.. (for which I need to re-sync with davem too btw, as he did some fixes that I didn't backport to powerpc... sigh) The other -one- thing that has to be different is the write back for properties that can be changed (/options typically) where the write back mecanism is definitely platform specific. Ben. - 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/