Re: device tree variations

2008-10-20 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> Thanks. The fdt_del_node approach works pretty nicely. I added a > dt_ops hook since fdt is static in libfdt-wrapper.c. .../... David says your patch is ok, However it's not in the right form. Could you repost it please with a proper changeset comment and signed-off-by: line ? Thanks ! Ch

Re: device tree variations

2008-10-20 Thread David Gibson
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 07:14:05PM -0700, Mike Ditto wrote: > David Gibson wrote: > > Deleting the irrelevant parts or picking a device tree to pass to > > fdt_init() are both reasonable solutions. libfdt which is included in > > the bootwrapper has functions for removing unwanted nodes: either >

Re: device tree variations

2008-10-17 Thread Mike Ditto
David Gibson wrote: > Deleting the irrelevant parts or picking a device tree to pass to > fdt_init() are both reasonable solutions. libfdt which is included in > the bootwrapper has functions for removing unwanted nodes: either > fdt_nop_node() or fdt_del_node() will suffice. There isn't currentl

Re: device tree variations

2008-10-16 Thread David Gibson
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 05:52:54PM -0700, Mike Ditto wrote: > I'm building a kernel that can run on a handful of hardware > configurations, all using OF-unaware U-Boot. I know how to make a > static device tree (dts file) that works on one of these hardware > variations, and how to add nodes and m