Hi.
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:49:01 -0400 Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > 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. Interesting. If so, "u-boot,dm-pre-reloc" is a bad idea, isn't it? It seems a really U-Boot-specific property, although I only see it in test/dm/test.dts. Best Regards Masahiro Yamada _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
