On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:46:32PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Daniel,
>
> In message <50893633.6070...@gmail.com> you wrote:
> >
> > Overwrites must be addressed in the first place. The most common example
> > is that a more generic part (the module tree) registers all details
> > about a peripheral up-front but then sets its status to 'disabled'. That
> > way, the more specific part (the base board tree) can overwrite this
> > property to 'okay' at wish to enable it and not care for the pre-defined
> > details. This is also how we do things in our device-trees.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > > I definitely can see the benefit of such a feature and would be happy
> > > if you could go forward and implement it.
> >
> > Ok then. I guess this should be something that can eventually be merged
> > back into libfdt?
>
> I can't speak for the FDT custodian, but I think this makes a lot of
> sense.
As a rule I'm happy to see more functionality for libfdt. I've only
seen bits and pieces of this thread, though, so I'd need to see a
summary of what exactly is being proposed.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
