On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 01:33:14PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote: > 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?".
Yes on powerpc devicetree really does work very well. I really don't see why it couldn't work that well on ARM. > 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. I don't see any overhead other than maybe a tiny bit when the driver starts to determine what IRQ or GPIO line to use for a given device. > 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? :-) Maybe it is an issue of the drivers not being ready to get everything they need to know about a given system from devicetree. That is a lot of work to do. -- Len Sorensen -- 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/20130228194120.gt20...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
