* Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [121105 06:36]: > 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. Great, sounds like almost-a-plan then :) Regards, Tony -- 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
