On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote: >> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device >> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and >> suggestions greatly appreciated. > > Here's one other requirement I'd like that I don't think I saw > explicitly mentioned in your document: > > Assuming a base file board.dts and a child board file child.dts, the > compiled file child.dtb should be usable with a modified board.dtb > assuming it exports the same set of attachment-points (hashed phandles, > socket objects, whatever). This allows bug-fixes etc. to board.dts > without forcing every child.dts to be recompiled. No, I hadn't explicitly captured that one, but yes it is the intent. > If the attachment points is hashed node names or node content from > board.dts, I'm not sure how this is possible? Ummm, I think there is misunderstanding about the hashed phandles. My thought is merely that using a hash to generate a phandle is 'better' than starting at 1 and counting upwards when dtc compiles the tree. That way, if the path to the node has not changed, then the phandle will not have changed. However, phandles can still be explicitly specified if slightly different trees need to have the same target point. That said, if portability of dtb files is a strong requirement, then it will be difficult to do with simple overlays. Even if the phandles line up, the irq/gpio specifiers probably need to be different. That makes things harder. 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
