On Friday 04 May 2012, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message <201205041934.08830.arnd@xxxxxxxx> you wrote: > > > > One idea that I've heard before is to put device tree fragments into the > > kernel and dynamically add them to the device tree that was passed by the > > boot loader whenever we detect the presence of a specific device. > > This obviously means it works only for boards using DT for booting, but > > it allows us to use some infrastructure that we already have. > > > > Another idea was to put all the possible extensions into the device tree > > for a given board and disable them by default, putting it into the > > responsibility of the boot loader to enable the one that is actually > > being used. This has serious scalibility problems when there are many > > possible extensions and also relies more on the boot loader than I would > > like. > > On the other hand, some of the issues we're trying to solve here > for the kernel are also present in the boot loader, so this needs to > do this anyway - whether by inserting new or modifying (enabling or > disabling) existing properties in the DT is not really relevant here. I haven't seen a case where the add-on board is actually required for booting. What examples are you thinking of? Arnd -- 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
