Hi Ben, > On May 14, 2015, at 10:47 , Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [snip] So I spend some time thinking about your use case and I think it boils down to this: I have a live tree in the firmware, I have made changes and I need to reflect those changes to the live tree in the kernel. Sounds like ‘how do I generate a patch for getting those two in sync'. No? I can see where this might be useful for others as all. I think we really need to create a liblivedt like we have libfdt since we have a number of projects going about using/manipulating DT at runtime. 1. The linux kernel, with it’s own live tree implementation. 2. The device tree compiler (it has a live tree) custom implemented. 3. Your weird and wonderful (or wacky) firmware. 4. u-boot does use DT now, but it does with libfdt. I believe this is suboptimal. 5. barebox does DT as well. Most of what we want to do with DT can be abstracted in a library I think that all of those projects can use. What are your thoughts? Regards — Pantelis -- 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
