Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-11-06 Thread Grant Likely
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote: > cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/ Interesting. I only just was made aware of this thread. There is a similar discussion going on kicked off by th

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-11-03 Thread Daniel Mack
On 03.11.2012 16:25, David Gibson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 10:24:06AM +0100, Daniel Mack wrote: >> On 01.11.2012 04:26, David Gibson wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:24:11AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: >> I would especially like to know where such a new functionality should liv

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-11-03 Thread David Gibson
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 10:24:06AM +0100, Daniel Mack wrote: > On 01.11.2012 04:26, David Gibson wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:24:11AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > > >> I would especially like to know where such a new functionality should > >> live, which data types it should operate on and

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-11-02 Thread David Gibson
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:36:08PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 10/31/2012 05:56 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote: > > On 10/31/2012 1:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote: > >> cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread: > >> > >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-11-01 Thread Daniel Mack
On 01.11.2012 04:26, David Gibson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:24:11AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: >> I would especially like to know where such a new functionality should >> live, which data types it should operate on and what would be an >> appropriate name for it. > > So.. the first thoug

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-11-01 Thread Mitch Bradley
On 10/31/2012 6:36 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 10/31/2012 05:56 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote: >> On 10/31/2012 1:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote: >>> cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread: >>> >>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/ >>> >>> On 26.10.2012 2

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-11-01 Thread David Gibson
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:24:11AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > On 26.10.2012 02:53, David Gibson wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:46:32PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > >> Dear Daniel, > >> > >> In message <50893633.6070...@gmail.com> you wrote: > >>> > >>> Overwrites must be addressed in the f

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-11-01 Thread Mitch Bradley
On 10/31/2012 1:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote: > cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/ > > On 26.10.2012 20:39, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 10/24/2012 03:47 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> a project I'm

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-10-31 Thread Stephen Warren
On 10/31/2012 05:56 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote: > On 10/31/2012 1:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote: >> cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread: >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/ >> >> On 26.10.2012 20:39, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> On 10/24/2012 03:47 A

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-10-31 Thread Daniel Mack
On 01.11.2012 00:13, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 10/31/2012 05:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote: >> cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread: >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/ >> >> On 26.10.2012 20:39, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> On 10/24/2012 03:47 AM

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-10-31 Thread Stephen Warren
On 10/31/2012 05:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote: > cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/ > > On 26.10.2012 20:39, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 10/24/2012 03:47 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> a project I'

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-10-31 Thread Daniel Mack
cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/ On 26.10.2012 20:39, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 10/24/2012 03:47 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: >> Hi, >> >> a project I'm involved in uses a module/baseboard combo, and componen

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-10-26 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Stephen Warren, In message <508ad8f9.8030...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote: > > Simply overlaying two DTBs on top of each-other (in the same fashion > that dtc's /include/ statement would do at compile-time) might not be > fully general enough, although perhaps it would be sufficient for your > im

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-10-26 Thread Stephen Warren
On 10/24/2012 03:47 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: > Hi, > > a project I'm involved in uses a module/baseboard combo, and components > on either board are described in DT. I'm currently using separate dts > files which build upon each other with include statements, which works > fine for development. > >

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-10-26 Thread Simon Glass
Hi Daniel, On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Daniel Mack wrote: > On 26.10.2012 02:53, David Gibson wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:46:32PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >>> Dear Daniel, >>> >>> In message <50893633.6070...@gmail.com> you wrote: Overwrites must be addressed in the fi

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-10-26 Thread Daniel Mack
On 26.10.2012 02:53, David Gibson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:46:32PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Dear Daniel, >> >> In message <50893633.6070...@gmail.com> you wrote: >>> >>> Overwrites must be addressed in the first place. The most common example >>> is that a more generic part (the mo

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-10-25 Thread David Gibson
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:46:32PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Daniel, > > In message <50893633.6070...@gmail.com> you wrote: > > > > Overwrites must be addressed in the first place. The most common example > > is that a more generic part (the module tree) registers all details > > about a

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-10-25 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Daniel, In message <50893633.6070...@gmail.com> you wrote: > > Overwrites must be addressed in the first place. The most common example > is that a more generic part (the module tree) registers all details > about a peripheral up-front but then sets its status to 'disabled'. That > way, the

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-10-25 Thread Daniel Mack
Hi Wolfgang, On 25.10.2012 14:44, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message <5087b919.2010...@gmail.com> you wrote: >> >> So let's say we have n versions of the baseboard and m versions of the >> module, we would much like to only prepare n + m files, instead of n * m >> by pre-compiling every possible co

Re: [U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-10-25 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Daniel, In message <5087b919.2010...@gmail.com> you wrote: > > So let's say we have n versions of the baseboard and m versions of the > module, we would much like to only prepare n + m files, instead of n * m > by pre-compiling every possible combination (some of which may actually > never o

[U-Boot] Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems

2012-10-24 Thread Daniel Mack
Hi, a project I'm involved in uses a module/baseboard combo, and components on either board are described in DT. I'm currently using separate dts files which build upon each other with include statements, which works fine for development. In production though, we will certainly have running chang