Re: [U-Boot] recommended action for bootloaders regarding modifying device-tree nodes

2014-01-31 Thread Jason Cooper
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 08:39:00PM -0800, Tim Harvey wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Jason Cooper wrote: > > Hi Tim, > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 01:11:18AM -0800, Tim Harvey wrote: > >> My approach has been to define a per-baseboard device-tree in Linux > >> for a 'fully loaded' boa

Re: [U-Boot] recommended action for bootloaders regarding modifying device-tree nodes

2014-01-30 Thread Tim Harvey
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 03:45:58PM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > This is more of a process question: Is there any information captured > > in your EEPROM that can't be represented in the dtb? iow, at the point > > when you write the

Re: [U-Boot] recommended action for bootloaders regarding modifying device-tree nodes

2014-01-30 Thread Tim Harvey
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Jason Cooper wrote: > Hi Tim, > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 01:11:18AM -0800, Tim Harvey wrote: >> My approach has been to define a per-baseboard device-tree in Linux >> for a 'fully loaded' board, then remove nodes which the EEPROM claims >> are not present in the

Re: [U-Boot] recommended action for bootloaders regarding modifying device-tree nodes

2014-01-30 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 03:45:58PM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote: > This is more of a process question: Is there any information captured > in your EEPROM that can't be represented in the dtb? iow, at the point > when you write the EEPROM, why not write the dtb to it as configured? I can share what

Re: [U-Boot] recommended action for bootloaders regarding modifying device-tree nodes

2014-01-30 Thread Jason Cooper
Hi Tim, On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 01:11:18AM -0800, Tim Harvey wrote: > My approach has been to define a per-baseboard device-tree in Linux > for a 'fully loaded' board, then remove nodes which the EEPROM claims > are not present in the bootloader before it passes the DTB to the > kernel. I do this

Re: [U-Boot] recommended action for bootloaders regarding modifying device-tree nodes

2014-01-30 Thread Michal Suchanek
Hello, On 30 January 2014 10:11, Tim Harvey wrote: > Greetings, > > > Is it more appropriate for the bootloader to 'remove' nodes for > devices that are not physically present or should I be setting their > status property to 'disabled' instead? I'm not clear if either option > really has any pr

[U-Boot] recommended action for bootloaders regarding modifying device-tree nodes

2014-01-30 Thread Tim Harvey
Greetings, I develop the boot-loader and kernel for a family of boards that have an on-board EEPROM which contains information as to what options are physically loaded on the board such as memory size/config, and peripheral IC's. We allow customers to create special builds of our standard product