On Mon, 26 May 2014 23:44:41 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Grant, > > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Grant Likely > <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > After thinking about it more, I think it is very likely that removing > > all the overlays is the correct thing to do in the kexec use-case. When > > kexec-ing, it makes sense that we'd want the exact same behaviour from > > the kexec'ed kernel. That means we want the device drivers to do the > > same thing including loading whatever overlays they depend on. > > Are the device drivers loading the overlays? > That sounds a bit backwards to me. In a lot of cases, yes. For example, the beaglebone capebus driver would be responsible for identifying and requesting or loading the correct overlay to describe the hardware. Having userspace provide an arbitrary overlay is only one of the use cases. g. -- 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
