Hi Ard,
> >
> > That's the model we're trying to break away from. Having the DTB tied
> > to the kernel is a bad model for supporting distributions.
>
> I'd say it is a bad model period.
>
> This requires the OS to know about every piece of hardware this kernel could
> potentially ever run on, and not only does this not scale, it also means you have
> to predict the future if you are ever going try and run an OS that is older than the
> hardware it runs on. Having a well defined contract (i.e., the DT bindings) was
> designed to remove these impediments, but in reality, the tight coupling of
> kernel and DT resulted in bad developer hygiene when it comes to honoring the
> contract in a backward compatible manner.
Yes, with DTB we have some sort of tight coupling. Which I guess not easy to break
At-least for older released OS.
>
> Updating your firmware should be so easy and hassle free that it really does not
> matter if you are updating the entire image or just the DTB. I don't think there
> should be a mandated way to update the DT only if you can just rebuild your
> firmware including the DT and update the whole thing.
This is currently we are using this as WA, to update whole firmware when needed to update DTB.
We need to build whole firmware, just to update DTB , However new entries are for OS only
Regards
Udit
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{����* jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
