So please do this crap right.
I strongly agree. Nowadays, both powerpc and sparc use an in-memory
copy
of the tree (wether you use the flattened format during the trampoline
from OF runtime to the kernel or not is a different matter, we created
that for the sake of kexec and embedded devices with no real OF, but
the
end result is the same, a kernel based tree structure).
Are you really suggesting that using a kernel copy of the
device tree is the correct thing to do, and the only correct
thing to do -- with the sole argument that "that's what the
current ports do"?
There is already powerpc's /proc/device-tree and sparc's openpromfs,
I'm
all about converging that to a single implementation (a filesystem is
fine)
We all agree on that, the OLPC people too, they just didn't
have time yet.
that uses the in-memory tree.
...but to that I can't agree.
Segher
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
