Kumar, Right now I'm only looking a basic support. I know there are those who believe that u-boot actually does more manipulation than it should. I'll let Grant speak up if he wants to:).
John On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Kumar Gala <ga...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > On Aug 5, 2010, at 5:14 PM, John Rigby wrote: > >> Add fdt_fixup_memory_banks and reimplement fdt_fixup_memory >> to use it. >> >> Signed-off-by: John Rigby <john.ri...@linaro.org> >> --- >> common/fdt_support.c | 86 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- >> include/fdt_support.h | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) > > John, > > Do you have any sense of how far you intend to go w/device tree's on ARM? > > I ask because I've been thinking we actually need to have "live tree" > structure representation in u-boot (much like the kernel) to allow us to do > some of the manipulations we are doing more and more of. > > The problem w/libfdt is that use of 'offsets' to get to nodes can be > problematic if the offset changes while manipulating it. There are ways > around thus but a number of functions we do would benefit from a more live > tree. > > Wondering how far you envision ARM going w/device tree and u-boot doing node > creations and fix ups. > > - k > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > U-Boot@lists.denx.de > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
