On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Pantelis Antoniou <panto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> This handles many of the use cases, but it assumes that an overlay is >> board specific. If it ever is required to support multiple base boards >> with a single overlay file then there is a problem. The .dtb overlays >> generated in this manor cannot handle different phandles or nodes that >> are in a different place. On the other hand, the overlay source files >> should have no problem being compiled for multiple targets, so maybe >> it isn't an issue. Plus if dtc is installed on the target, then the >> live tree from /proc can be used as the reference when compiling the >> overlay. > > My worry is that this format is dependent on linking against the board > DTS file. One of the ideas thrown around here was that it might make > sense to store the DTB fragment in the EEPROM of the device. Right, that wouldn't work well if the base DT changed, or if a BeagleBone2 is released that has the same header configuration, but different backing devices. It would be nice to have a solution for that. > In that case you have a OS independent hardware description, which can > be even used even by the bootloader to access devices it knows not about > at compile time. > > Other than that, I have no other objections. I'm open to suggestions if anyone has any. I have not objections to a fixup approach, but I'm not comfortable with anything that is fragile to modifications to the fragment. 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
