>>>>> "Sven" == Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi, >> This, of course, is exactly why I *don't* recommend embedded platforms >> move to including the device tree in the flashed firmware. Keeping >> the device tree in the bootwrapper means that it *is* updated with the >> kernel and we don't have to mess around with as much backwards >> compatibility junk. Sven> This completely defeats the purpopse of having a separate Sven> device tree though, no ? I mean, we could just as well hardcode Sven> the device-tree info in the kernel in this case ? Well, yes and no. The device tree brings a number of advantages (and a few disadvantages as well), one of those being the potential decoupling of kernel and DT. Even if you don't make use of that feature in a production build you still have the other advantages (E.G. easy compile test of multiple boards, limited repeated-these-are-my-platform-devices code in board files, ...). Sven> (In embedded cases, the kernel is usyually in the flash as Sven> well, so you just upgrade both at the same time :) Sure, but if you do that you might as well include them in a single uImage because: - They are always in sync - You don't waste flash space (E.G. the DT is very small, but you waste a complete flash sector) With uImage.<platform> U-Boot can still fix up the tree before booting the kernel, so you don't lose any functionality (E.G. if you enable/disable certain nodes based on what option boards are available). -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
