On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 05:00:41PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> Am 15.09.2011 um 13:03 schrieb David Gibson :
>
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:37:48AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> On 15.09.2011, at 05:19, David Gibson wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:42:52AM +0200, Ale
Am 15.09.2011 um 13:03 schrieb David Gibson :
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:37:48AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 15.09.2011, at 05:19, David Gibson wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:42:52AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
We currently load a device tree blob and then just take
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:37:48AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 15.09.2011, at 05:19, David Gibson wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:42:52AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> We currently load a device tree blob and then just take its size x2 to
> >> account for modifications we do i
On 15.09.2011, at 05:19, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:42:52AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> We currently load a device tree blob and then just take its size x2 to
>> account for modifications we do inside. While this is nice and great,
>> it fails when we have a small device
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:42:52AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> We currently load a device tree blob and then just take its size x2 to
> account for modifications we do inside. While this is nice and great,
> it fails when we have a small device tree as blob and lots of nodes added
> in machine i
