Robert Schwebel wrote:
Well observed; isn't this the prove of the assumption that the whole device tree idea is not working? It is *always* inconsistent and it is *maintenance hell* because out-of-tree ports do *always* breakt because of string inconsistencies. We have just ported a 8260 board from 2.6.22 to 2.6.25 and it is almost 100% oftree porting.
There's going to be more churn in the initial stages than down the road. 82xx had barely been added to arch/powerpc in 2.6.22, and there was little review of the initial device tree bindings.
The ARM method of using just a device number is so much easier ...
Yeah, it's so much fun to have to allocate a globally unique number for every minor tweak of a board, and to have to maintain a mapping from said numbers to information that is semantically equivalent to a device tree but in less maintainable form in the kernel source.
-Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
