On 11/6/07, Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Grant, > > in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > > > In other words; make the assumption that it is easier to change the > > kernel than it is to change the device tree. > > Are you serious about this? > > Reading this from someone with your experience with device trees if > feeding my worst fears...
I think I better clarify. Once a device tree is written and shipped on a deployed board, it may never change again. Or, the kernel version may be updated more frequently than the device tree. Say, for example, that in kernel 2.6.25 tqm5200 and cm5200 are both handled by the same platform code. And lets say that in 2.6.26 we decide that they really need to have separate platform code (perhaps due to a firmware bug that needs to be worked around on one board). In this case, "mpc5200-simple-platform" has suddenly become useless. Or, does mpc5200-simple-platform now describe the cm5200 or the tqm5200? (an assumption which cannot be made due to deployed boards of both types claiming "mpc5200-simple-platform"). Trying to claim "compatible" at the board level is far more difficult than claiming it at the device level. Segher suggested on IRC: "for boards it is pretty much useless most of the time, i think -- use "model" instead" Cheers, g. > > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk > > -- > DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel > HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany > Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even > one which cannot be justified on any other grounds." > -- J. Finnegan, USC. > -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (403) 399-0195 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
