On Friday 23 September 2011 12:13:00 Linas Vepstas wrote: > Here: http://lwn.net/Articles/457635/ you say: "If the device tree > vision comes true, a single board will actually be able to use the > same device tree binary on either one, independent of which CPU > actually runs the kernel." > > In my case, the hexagon and the arm cores will perceive the same > devices at different addresses; there are also devices attached to one > core that aren't attached to the other. So either we have two DT's, > one for each core, or we have one DT with subsections for each core. > > I haven't yet looked to see how the DT's are being designed, but I have > this sneaking suspicion that the second alternative is not being > pursued ... Hi Linas, You can have .dtsi include files that describe the common parts and just put the child buses at different addresses or leave them out from a main .dts source file. I think it should all work out. If not, there is still the option of adding features to dtc to allow what you need. Arnd -- 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
