No comment from me on $SUBJECT beyond "it seems plausible", but ... On Tuesday 25 November 2008, David VomLehn wrote: > The important point, though, is that device tree is the only > thing approaching a standard on any non-x86-based platform for passing > structured information from the bootloader to the kernel. The command > line is just not sufficient for this. Me, I'll be happier if I don't have to try using that device tree. Having board-specific code in the kernel is a more complete solution, and makes it a lot easier to cope with all the hardware goofage. Recall that the *original* notion behind OpenBoot (now "OpenFirmware") was to have tables for the stuff that was table-friendly, and call out to FORTH code (possibly not just at boot time) for the rest. (Given the choice of FORTH vs ACPI bytecodes, I'd go for FORTH; but the better option is "neither".) Right now I see an awful lot of work going into trying to force lots of stuff into table format. Even when it's the sort of one-off or board-specific quirkery that was an original motivation for having FORTH escapes (tasks that were not table-friendly). - Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
