On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:53 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On 06/23/09 15:41, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > >> Do you have any other cases in mind where it would be helpful? > >> > > > > Well, it might be for virtual device discovery etc... but don't bother > > now. We might talk about it at KS for those interested. It's more > > something we see as useful for embedded archs at the moment but in the > > long run it might make sense for hypervisors as well. > > > > Perhaps. We have Xenbus - which is a little bit like OF in that it has > data in a hierarchical namespace - and I guess it might be possible to > find a mapping onto some generic OF-like interface. Which is sort-of what we did. IE. We disconnected the device-tree itself from the underlying firmware, using the device-tree and OF-style bindings (in some case simplified) as a basis for representing devices but without the need for an actual open firmware underneath. > However, Xenbus is an active communication channel between virtual machines > rather than a > static representation of a machine configuration (for example, you can > put a watch on a particular path to get a notification of when someone > else changes it). On ppc64 too, the HV can feed us with new tree nodes or remove some, it doesn't have to be static. Though we mostly use it as a static tree on embedded. > But, yes, this is a good KS hallway track subject. Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
