Hi David, On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 at 02:52, David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 04:29:23PM -0800, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > We had a discussion today about a possible new v18 DT format[1] > > > > You have seen Frank Rowand's design from January[2]. Frank presented > > material at the conference[3] and I wrote up something up too [4]. > > Yes, I didn't like the original proposal very much - overly > complicated, but the revised one I suggested back looks reasonably > do-able. Did that move ahead? I have been a little submerged for a while. > > Your proposal seems to have a rather different focus from Frank's - > his is mostly about cleaner handling of overlays and similar > extensions. Yours is mostly about size. > > Can I ask what's the concern here? I mean, first of all, I'm finding > it a bit hard to believe that a few kiB of device tree really mean > much in the context of a vaguely modern system. But more specifically > is the concern in-memory size? Or size on persistent storage, disk or > flash? Those two would be amenable to different approaches to > mitigate. > > > Obviously this is a big undertaking and there is no guarantee it will > > go anywhere, nor that everyone will agree. > > So, looking at your document, really the only approach that seems > likely to be worth the trouble from the numbers you present is (B). > Although for (B), I'm not quite sure how you're encoding things not to > disallow cases that we do actually want to support. (J) seems like it > might be an interesting approach, coupled with a variant of (B), > although the numbers you give aren't too promising. What do you think about adding type information to the .dtb format? That is in the 'detailed design' section. [..] Regards, Simon
