Hi Warner, On 09/12/2016 04:26 PM, Warner Losh wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Since the question seems understood, do you have an example of other SoC's >>> doing something similar? >> >> I do not have an example. I know that others are using DT for data >> beyond what Linux or another OS requires, but it's my understanding that >> that is typically in a separate DTB. > > Just to clarify: FreeBSD uses, for the most part, the DTB's that the > 'vendor' ships, which is quite often the same ones included in Linux. > There's some exceptions where the bindings weren't really hardware > independent, or where the abstraction model was really Linux specific > (for things like the HDMI stack). > > However, with the advent of overlays, one would think that a vendor > could easily include an overlay with the DTB data for the devices they > don't wish to, or cannot for other reasons release. It seems like the > perfect mechanism to comply with the rules about inclusion of nodes in > the DTS. Vendors are free to document these nodes and don't require > the Linux kernel include them in the Documents directory to do so. > There have been recent efforts to move this documentation to a third > party to maintain. This is very interesting, do you have a more concrete example of such usage? The overlay technique could be a solution, but so is forking and distributing a non-documented DT. That's why I'd put this solution a little bit lower than just exposing the entire HW description through the DT. Best regards, Sebastian -- 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
