Hi Grant,
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 03:26:11PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> I disagree and that is not my point.
Well, having something like a device tree that describes the hardware is
definitely a good thing, in general.
> Now, if out-of-tree ports continue to break then we've got a problem
> th
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Segher Boessenkool <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Let's flat out refuse any patch series that uses a non-documented
> binding.
>
I would love this, it makes life easier, but let's make sure that the
documented binding is actually
fairly future proof, first, and n
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> This is why I've always had mixed feelings about merging device trees
> into u-boot, rather than having them supplied by the wrapper.
On the other hand, we can now use the device tree to dynamically
configure U-Boot, thus allowing to run the
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 03:07:58PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> Robert Schwebel wrote:
>> Well observed; isn't this the prove of the assumption that the whole
>> device tree idea is not working? It is *always* inconsistent and it is
>> *maintenance hell* because out-of-tree ports do *always* breakt b
I disagree and that is not my point. My point is that perfection is
neither obtainable or necessary.
It's a nice goal though.
Many of the recently established
embedded guidelines are not "perfect" because they are counter to a
few of the OF recommended practices. However, they are consistent
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Robert Schwebel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 08:52:55AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > It may be ideal, but I don't think it is realistic. I'm now of the
> > firm opinion that device trees and firmware are *never* perfect.
> > Especially w
Robert Schwebel wrote:
> The ARM method of using just a device number is so much easier ...
And I was going to suggest that the ARM guys should use device trees, too.
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linu
Robert Schwebel wrote:
Well observed; isn't this the prove of the assumption that the whole
device tree idea is not working? It is *always* inconsistent and it is
*maintenance hell* because out-of-tree ports do *always* breakt because
of string inconsistencies. We have just ported a 8260 board fr
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 08:52:55AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> It may be ideal, but I don't think it is realistic. I'm now of the
> firm opinion that device trees and firmware are *never* perfect.
> Especially when the definition of perfect is a moving target.
Well observed; isn't this the prove
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Matt Sealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd not thank Grant.
>
> I think the prom_init fixes are bordering on disgusting.. it would
> make it's way into commercial code for sure, but only because nobody
> would see what a hideous mess it is :)
>
> The best solut
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 04:14:42AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 April 2008, Matt Sealey wrote:
> > Grant Likely wrote:
> > >
> > > Sure, why not? If the firmware has already set it up correctly and no
> > > devices using it are in use, then the kernel should be okay. :-)
> > > Tha
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 April 2008, Matt Sealey wrote:
>
> > Grant Likely wrote:
> > >
> > > Sure, why not? If the firmware has already set it up correctly and no
> > > devices using it are in use, then the kernel should be okay.
On Tuesday 08 April 2008, Matt Sealey wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
> >
> > Sure, why not? If the firmware has already set it up correctly and no
> > devices using it are in use, then the kernel should be okay. :-)
> > That said, I can't imagine choosing to not put the cdm node into the
> > devic
Grant Likely wrote:
(cc'ing the mailing list in my reply)
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Detlev Zundel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wrote,
> debugging a lite5200b kernel (linux-2.6-denx equivalent of 2.6.25-rc8) I
> noticed that in mpc52xx_map_common_devices (mpc52xx_common.c:161) the
>
(cc'ing the mailing list in my reply)
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Detlev Zundel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wrote,
>
> > debugging a lite5200b kernel (linux-2.6-denx equivalent of 2.6.25-rc8) I
> > noticed that in mpc52xx_map_common_devices (mpc52xx_common.c:161) the
> > cdm module is t
15 matches
Mail list logo
