On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 04:20:09PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On 10/18/2013 02:32 PM, Michael Bohan wrote: > > My preference is probably straight libfdt calls, but if others > > think that unpacking is a better solution, I'm able to go that > > route as well. My only concern there is that we provide a means > > to detect invalid dtb image (ex. handle error codes) and also > > free the device_node allocations once the device is released. > > I think we need to understand what you are putting in the DT first. That's understandable. Please see my response to Mark. > Given there are other desired uses like overlays which need to add the > necessary loading and unflattening support, a common solution is likely > more desirable. But by convention, would overlays allow for 'application specific' data, or are they expected to meet the more rigid requirements of a real Device Tree? Thanks, Mike -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
