Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Scott,
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
Well, the device tree is a mechanism for communicating from the firmware
to the kernel, and if we could control the firmware better we'd just make
it set the pins properly to begin with. :-)
Is this just a comment, or do you oppose Heiko's suggestion?
It was intended more as a gentle nudge to set up the pins in firmware
when not constrained by existing firmwares in the field that must be
supported.
Other uses of the device tree seem possible and reasonable, too. For
example, we can use the device tree to configure the firmware (U-Boot
in this case).
Using the device tree to describe the pin configuration of the
hardware sounds easier to me than hard-coding it in some source (or
header) file - no matter if this is in the kernel and/or in the
firmware.
What do you think?
I'm fine with putting it in the device tree for firmware's benefit,
though I'm not sure I fully agree with the "easier" bit until we get
support for expressions and named constants in dts, so that the flags
would be less opaque.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
