On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Pantelis Antoniou <panto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2012, at 1:22 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Pantelis Antoniou >> <panto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Assuming that we do work on a DT object format, and that the runtime resolution mechanism is approved, >>> then I agree that this part of the capebus patches can be dropped and the functionality assumed by generic >>> DT core. >>> >>> The question is that this will take time, with no guarantees that this would be acceptable from >>> the device tree maintainers. So I am putting them in the CC list, to see what they think about it. >> >> This is actually exactly the direction I want to go with DT, which the >> ability to load supplemental DT data blobs from either a kernel module >> or userspace using the firmware loading infrastructure. >> >> g. > > Hi Grant, > > That's pretty much our use case. > > Regards Good. I'm about 80% though putting together a project plan of what is required to implement this. I'll post it for RFC shortly. I would appreciate feedback and help on flushing out the design. g. -- 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
