On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 08:44:46PM -0400, Jerry Van Baren wrote: > I'm a half-ack. ;-) I'm partial to u-boot's implementation rather than > using a bootwrapper for obvious reasons. The u-boot implementation > takes the blob as a boot parameter and passes it along to the kernel > after doing appropriate (optional) fixups.
And if those fixups expect a malformed device tree? > Other than that quibble, I agree that burning the blob into the firmware > so that the firmware must be recompiled and reburned to change the blob > is very undesirable. I thought the device tree was *supposed* to be an interface between the firmware and the kernel? What if the firmware produces the tree dynamically? What if the firmware itself depends on having the device tree in order to operate? -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev