On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Nicolas Pitre <n...@fluxnic.net> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Jamie Lokier wrote: >> So requiring that a bootloader can update the DT _independently_ of >> everything else is a bit much for some devices. > > In my opinion, this use case you're illustrating above simply could > continue to _not_ use DT at all. If your NOR flash is so small that you > cannot spare some extra erase blocks, then this is a deeply embedded > profile the current DT-on-ARM push is not really meant for. You would > be much better with a minimally configured kernel with all the hardware > info statically compiled into the kernel and get away without all the DT > parsing code altogether, like you're already doing today. > > While I think DT for ARM has advantages, I don't see us dropping the > legacy ARM methods anytime soon, especially for existing or extremely > constrained targets.
I completely agree. g. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
