On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 09:30:32AM -0700, David Daney wrote: > On 10/18/2013 08:57 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > [...] > > > >Unflattening is definitely the right > >direction to go here. > > > > I wonder if that is really true. > > The device tree in question is very short lived, and used to control > the configuration of some hardware device when loading the driver. > > The use of it is completely contained within a single driver (at > least that is my understanding), it is not information that needs to > be shared system wide. That's correct. > Given that it is a driver implementation issue, rather than making > things work nicely system wide, I don't think it really matters what > is done. > > It may be that the overhead of unflattening the tree and then > freeing it, is much greater than just extracting a few things from > the FDT. Yes, this was my original thought as well. On the other hand, having libfdt in the kernel does add a little extra bloat, and so it seems a tradeoff from one-time runtime overhead to footprint. > That said, I don't really have a preference for what is done. My > original questions were targeted at understanding this particular > use case. My preference is probably straight libfdt calls, but if others think that unpacking is a better solution, I'm able to go that route as well. My only concern there is that we provide a means to detect invalid dtb image (ex. handle error codes) and also free the device_node allocations once the device is released. Thanks, Mike -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
