On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <l...@lkcl.net> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Lennart Sorensen > <lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > > all that devicetree has done is move the problem, as well as add a > runtime overhead to the execution of resource-critical devices. > > not very clever, that.
Part of me regrets being as positive about DT as I was on LAK back when the decision was made. But I had just come off of a PowerPC project, and it worked pretty well there and so I figured, "why not?". I do think that DT is a good idea, and the runtime overhead is a manageable problem. But it's a good idea because it creates the opportunity for post-compile-time flexibility, which CAN make some board files go away. Not nearly as many as some of us thought they would however, and not without effort. A related problem is that about 80% of what goes on in most ARM board files should be done as module_init(), not board_init(). If we were to be more vigilant about that, then DT would have more chances to improve things. What were we talking about, again? :-) b.g. -- Bill Gatliff b...@billgatliff.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cadkcauvatomenrobcs2ofjzkxsuu7v-mpse9vuratwesgcc...@mail.gmail.com
