On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 07:44:30AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi, > > On 25 September 2014 07:18, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 04:38:09PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > >> Hi Simon, > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:08:11 -0600 > >> Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> > >> > > +config OF_EMBED > >> > > + bool "Embedded DTB for DT control" > >> > > + help > >> > > + If this option is enabled, the device tree will be picked up > >> > > and > >> > > + built into the U-Boot image. > >> > > >> > Can you please add " This is suitable for debugging > >> > and development only and is not recommended for production devices." > >> > >> > >> Why is CONFIG_OF_EMBED not recommended for production devices? > > > > It's kind-of a question for the devicetree folks. The last time (a > > while back now) I asked for some general advice on how a DT should be > > shipped with hardware, being able to update the DT without replacing the > > whole of firmware was seen as a good thing. Combine this with that we > > should try (yes, we can't today due to incompatible bindings) share the > > DT between U-Boot and the kernel (or really, U-Boot and anything but > > again, last I checked the BSD bindings were very very different), > > embedding doesn't seem good. > > Addressing the binding differences, it's hard to see what these are > right now since the sorting and other churn in the Linux device tree > files. I think it would be good to sync the U-Boot files to the Linux > ones so we can see what bindings still differ.
Yes, agreed. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
