On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 02:00:52AM +0100, ext Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [091202 07:06]: > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > * Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [091130 09:01]: > > <snip> > > > > > > > maybe you've already thought through all this.. But would it be > > > possible to do lightweight device tree that we just use to populate > > > the platform data? > > > > This is completely possible. Just having the device tree available > > doesn't force the kernel to use it for everything. I've found it > > useful to start small and add things as I need them. Most important > > thing to remember is to follow the documented & established device > > tree conventions so that common code can understand it. > > OK, sounds good to me. Hi, This device tree stuff sounds like very cool way of doing things. Hope it is ready soon :) Meanwhile, would it be OK to implement something to get the serial driver taking control of the all the UARTs? Any comments on adding new function to mach-omap2/serial.c: omap_serial_init_port(int port) that could be used from board files instead of omap_serial_init()? Thanks, MW -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
