On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Nicolas Pitre <n...@fluxnic.net> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, David Gibson wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 11:02:15PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: >> Indeed. In fact, the general rule of thumb is really "put as much as >> possible into the most easily replaced layer of the stack". This is, >> incidentally, why I've always been dubious about simple firmwares >> supplying a flattened device tree rather than including the device >> tree template in the kernel, cuboot style. > > The biggest advantage, IMHO, for adding DT to ARM, is actually to > decouple the hardware config information and the kernel. If in the end > the DT has to be shipped in the kernel then we're losing all this > advantage over the current state of things on ARM which still works > pretty well otherwise. > > In the best case, the simple firmware simply has to retrieve the > flattened device tree from flash, and pass it to the kernel just like > some anonymous blob. And the simple firmware only needs to provide a > way for that DT blob to be updatable, like through an upload of a > replacement blob that was prepared offline. Just like a ramdisk image > or the like. > > That doesn't need to be fancier than that, and the goal of having the DT > data tied to the hardware instead of the kernel is achieved.
exactly right. g. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev