On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 01:43:29PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 08:30:56PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote: > > > > Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > >> On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 21:09 -0400, Jon Smirl wrote: > >>>> Last time I noticed it was working was about ten days ago. I don't use > >>>> it everyday. > >>> Efika is broken because of this: > >>> > >>> ohci-ppc-of.c... > >>> is_bigendian = > >>> of_device_is_compatible(dn, "ohci-bigendian") || > >>> of_device_is_compatible(dn, "ohci-be"); > >>> > >>> Efika doesn't have either of those in it's compatible string. > >>> > >>> This doesn't look to me like a very reliable way to determine bigendian. > >> > >> You mean it's not reliable to expect people device-trees not to > >> suck ? :-) > > Alas, this is true :(. > > > It's reasonable to expect that device-trees do not get updated with the > > kernel for certain platforms (it does not fit into most quality assurance > > schedules to reflash every user's firmware every time they want to move up > > one revision to another, given the kernel release schedule of every 3-4 > > months) and when updating the search for compatible entries it should > > take into account these platforms. > > This, of course, is exactly why I *don't* recommend embedded platforms > move to including the device tree in the flashed firmware. Keeping > the device tree in the bootwrapper means that it *is* updated with the > kernel and we don't have to mess around with as much backwards > compatibility junk.
This completely defeats the purpopse of having a separate device tree though, no ? I mean, we could just as well hardcode the device-tree info in the kernel in this case ? (In embedded cases, the kernel is usyually in the flash as well, so you just upgrade both at the same time :) Friendly, Sven Luther _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev